ABDUL LATIF KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN And Other
The petitioner, a civil servant, challenged the decision of the Service Tribunal which had rejected his claim for restoration of seniority following his promotion to BPS-19. The core issue arose because the petitioner was initially denied promotion in 1982 due to an adverse remark in his 1980 Annual Confidential Report (ACR), while his juniors were promoted. Although the petitioner was subsequently cleared for promotion in 1983 once his 1981 ACR became available, he sought seniority over his juniors, arguing that had his 1981 ACR been considered earlier, his promotion would have been deferred rather than denied, allowing him to retain his seniority. The Supreme Court examined the petition for leave to appeal against the Service Tribunal's dismissal of his claim. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any violation of the terms and conditions of his service. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and determined that the case did not warrant the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby dismissing the petition.
- Does the failure to consider a subsequent ACR during a promotion board meeting automatically entitle a civil servant to restoration of seniority?
- Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 where no violation of service terms and conditions is demonstrated?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The petitioner's A.C.R. For 1981 was not before the Selection Board during the meeting of the Central Selection Board held. On 26-12-1982 for making promotion of the District Management Group Officers from BPS-18 to BPS-19 and acting on the remark recorded in the earlier A.C.R. Of 1980 to the effect "not fit for promotion" he was not cleared for promotion. As the remarks of some of his other colleagues were not adverse they were duly cleared for promotion. In the subsequent meeting of the Central Selection Board held on 11-12-1983, however, when the A.C.R.
2. For 1981 had become available the Board cleared the petitioner also for promotion. But as the petitioner's juniors had been cleared for promotion they became senior to him in BPS-19.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that if his A.C.R. Of 1981 had been placed before the meeting of the Central Selection Board held on 26-12-1982 his case could have been deferred and on the basis of his subsequent good A.C.R. Which had the effect of whittling, down the remarks contained in the A.C.R. Of 1980 ("not fit for promotion") the petitioner would have been found eligible for promotion from the date when his juniors were so found.
4. The Service Tribunal in a very detailed and a comprehensive order rejected this contention and the petitioner's claim that he was entitled to restoration of his seniority in these circumstances. Hence this petition for leave to appeal in this Court.
5. The petitioner has not been able to show what term and condition of his service has been violated.
6. Otherwise also this is not at all a fit case for exercise of this Court's jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. Dismissed.