MUHAMMAD ASHRAF CHAUDHRY vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the decision of the Service Tribunal regarding the non-promotion of the petitioner to a Grade-19 post. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in concluding that the petitioner's request for promotion had been considered and rejected simply because no reply was received to his application, and whether the department was required to take a conscious decision on his promotion before considering outsiders. Upon reviewing the official departmental files, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's service record was marked as "average" and that his Annual Confidential Reports for the preceding three years explicitly stated he was "not fit for promotion." Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the department had indeed taken a conscious decision not to recommend the petitioner for promotion. Consequently, the Court held that there was no ground for interference with the departmental decision. The petition was dismissed, affirming that where a conscious administrative decision regarding promotion is supported by the service record, judicial interference is not warranted.
- Does the absence of a reply to a promotion application necessarily imply that the request was considered and rejected?
- Is a department required to take a conscious decision regarding an employee's promotion before considering outside candidates?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a departmental decision regarding promotion when the official record indicates the employee is not fit for promotion?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--Notice was issued to the Deputy Attorney-General to hear him in answer to the submission of the petitioner made on the previous date of hearing which was noticed in the following words:-- "Submits that the view of the Service Tribunal that since the petitioner had submitted an application requesting for being considered for promotion (page 17 of the Paper Book) and no reply having been received thereto indicated that the petitioner's request for promotion had been considered and rejected is not tenable. In fact, the petitioner's case had to be considered under the Rules and a conscious decision taken thereon before any outsider could be considered for the post in question."
2. The officials of the Department have shown us the official files from which it is evident that the petitioner's record was "average" and in the. Annual Confidential Reports for the last three years it was remarked "not fit for promotion".
3. ' We are further informed that a conscious decision was taken by the Department not to recommend the petitioner for promotion to a Grade-19 post.
4. ' Not a fit case for interference by this Court. Dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.