Mrs. NAHEED ANJUM SHEIKH vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Mrs. Naheed Anjum Sheikh against the dismissal of her service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, a Senior English Teacher, was promoted to National Pay Scale No. 17 in 1977 in relaxation of rules, superseding numerous teachers without justification. Following the imposition of Martial Law, her promotion was reviewed, and she was reverted to National Pay Scale No. 14. After her departmental representations were rejected in 1983, her writ petition was dismissed by the High Court for lack of jurisdiction, and her subsequent appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal was dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question concerns the limitation period for challenging a departmental reversion order before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the view taken by the Service Tribunal regarding limitation suffered from no infirmity and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that appellate remedies before service tribunals must be pursued within the prescribed period of limitation.
- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal was justified in dismissing a service appeal as barred by time?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in service matters relating to civil servants?
- Can a promotion made in relaxation of all service rules superseding other employees be lawfully reviewed and reverted?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner was a Senior English Teacher in National Pay Scale No,14. On 30-5-1977 she was promoted to N.P.S. 17 in relaxation of all service rules. Her promotion involved supersession of 240 teachers without any justification. Immediately after the imposition of the Martial Law, her case was reviewed by the Departmental Promotion Committee and she was reverted back to N.P.S.
14. She made representations against her reversion on 17-11-1977, 15-1-1979, 1-3-80 and 12-4-1982.
She was informed on 26-1-1983 that her representations had been rejected. She filed a writ petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of her reversion. This was dismissed in limine on the ground that the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in service matters. She then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed as barred by time. She now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that the view taken by the learned Tribunal on the question of limitation suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed.