PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others vs RAZA RAZVI and 72 others
The respondent, an Inspector of Police, was denied immediate promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee due to adverse entries in his record, with a directive that his case be reconsidered after obtaining three consecutive good reports. He was subsequently promoted in 1979. Claiming seniority over juniors promoted during the interim period, he appealed to the Service Tribunal, which ruled in his favor, holding that the deferment of his promotion did not constitute a rejection of his case. The Provincial Government petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, contending that the deferment of promotion effectively amounted to a rejection of the respondent's case, thereby disentitling him to seniority over those promoted earlier. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the deferment of promotion by a departmental committee is legally equivalent to the rejection of a promotion case, thereby impacting the seniority rights of the civil servant. The matter was set for further hearing on the existing record with permission to file additional documents.
- Does the deferment of a promotion case by a Departmental Promotion Committee constitute a rejection of the case for promotion?
- Is a civil servant entitled to seniority over juniors promoted during the period his own promotion was deferred?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Respondent No, 1 was Inspector of Police. His case for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police came up for consideration before the Departmental Promotion Committee on 29/30-6-1976. On account of certain adverse entries in his record, the Committee did not recommend him for immediate promotion but decided that his case would be reconsidered after he had earned three consecutive good reports from his superiors. Accordingly, his case was again placed before the committee on 23-10-1979. On this occasion he was considered fit for promotion. During the intervening period, a number of Inspectors who were junior to him were promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. He made a representation that he should be declared senior to them. His representation was rejected whereupon he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal accepted the appeal and granted him the seniority on the ground that the deferment of promotion was not tantamount to rejection of his case for promotion.
2. This petition has been filed by the Provincial Government together with the Inspector-General of Police and Deputy Inspector-General of Police. In support of this petition it is contended that the deferment of promotion of Raza Razvi, respondent No, 1, amounted to the rejection of his case and as such the learned Tribunal was not right in taking a contrary view. This contention needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months.