Pakistan Case Law
1990 SCMR 1492

MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN SHAH vs DIRECTOR, FOOD, LAHORE REGION and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1990 SCMR 1492
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No,233 of 1988
Date1990-01-23
Judge(s)Saad Saood Jan and Rustam S. Sidhwa
Authored byRustam S. Sidhwa
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal as incompetent. The petitioner, a former Assistant Food Controller, sought pro forma promotion after his reinstatement in service, claiming he was overlooked in favor of a junior colleague. Although the High Court had previously directed the authorities to consider his representations, the Departmental Promotion Committee rejected his promotion on 14-1-1987 due to an unsatisfactory service record. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal in October 1987. The core legal question was whether the appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred and whether the Tribunal could adjudicate upon the fitness of a civil servant for promotion. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's own representations to the Secretary Food in February and July 1987 demonstrated his prior knowledge of the Committee's decision, rendering the appeal filed in October 1987 time-barred. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a Service Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to re-evaluate evidence regarding a civil servant's fitness for promotion, as this is a departmental prerogative.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to re-evaluate evidence regarding a civil servant's fitness for promotion?
  • Does the filing of departmental representations toll the limitation period for an appeal before a Service Tribunal if the petitioner had prior knowledge of the adverse decision?
  • Is a decision regarding a civil servant's fitness for promotion by a Departmental Promotion Committee subject to judicial review on the merits of the service record?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 12(ii), Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
service lawpro forma promotionlimitation periodservice tribunal jurisdictionfitness for promotiondepartmental promotion committeecivil servant

ORDER

' RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition by Mushtaq Hussain Shah, petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 4-2-1988 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 7-1-1980, the petitioner, while working as Assistant Food Controller, was retired from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. On 17- 1-1982 he was reinstated in service, with back benefits. In the meantime Ch. Muhammad Fazil, respondent No,3, who was junior to the petitioner, was promoted as Storage Officer on 24-9-1980.

The petitioner requested for his promotion, but it was not considered. He filed W.P. No,2894 of 1985 in the High Court, Lahore in which the High Court gave directions to the Director Food Lahore Region, and the Secretary, Food, Government of the Punjab, respondents Nos.1 and 2, to decide the pending appeals/representations of the petitioner. In the meantime the petitioner retired on superannuation on 2-3-1985. The case of the petitioner for pro forma promotion was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 14-1-1987, but it did not find him fit for pro forma promotion due to unsatisfactory record of service. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed representation before the Secretary Food, Government of Punjab on 14-2-1987 which was rejected. The petitioner ultimately filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, on 13- 10-1987, which was dismissed as incompetent on 4-2-1988.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that he did not come to know of the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee, dated 14-1-1987 till 5-10-1987, during which intervening period he had also been making representations to the Secretary Food on 14-2-1987 and 29-7-1987. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal was not incompetent. It is further submitted that the adverse remarks recorded against the petitioner were not supported by any evidence and were passed on mere conjectures.

4. The representations of the petitioner to the Secretary Food made on 14-2-1987 and 29-7-1987 clearly show that the petitioner had information about the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee, dated 14-1-1987. In this view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that the appeal was barred is legal and proper. Likewise, the Tribunal could not have gone into evidence to determine the fitness or otherwise of the petitioner for promotion. No substantial legal question of public importance arises in this case. There being no merit in this petition the same is dismissed in limine.

Cited by 8 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.