Pakistan Case LawMASOOD AHMED CHAUDHARI, T.G.T., F.G. BOYS MIDDLE SCHOOL, BARAKAU, DISTRICT ISLAMABAD Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, ISLAMABAD And Other
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal as incompetent. The petitioner, a teacher in Grade-15, was superseded for the selection grade (B-17) while his juniors were promoted. The Government maintained that the petitioner's service record was unsatisfactory and he was not considered suitable. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in holding the appeal incompetent and declining to interfere with the promotion matter involving selection and suitability. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any supplementary statement or challenge before the Tribunal regarding uncommunicated adverse remarks or factual controversies, the matter pertained to selection and suitability, and the Tribunal's jurisdiction did not extend to substituting its own judgment for that of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly refused, laying down the principle that factual controversies and challenges to service records must be raised before the Tribunal, and the assessment of suitability for promotion by a departmental committee cannot be substituted where no such foundation was laid.
- Does the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal extend to matters of selection and suitability for promotion?
- Can a petitioner raise a new factual controversy regarding adverse ACRs for the first time before the Supreme Court without raising it before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the judgment of the Departmental Promotion Committee regarding suitability prevail when no supplementary statement is filed to challenge uncommunicated adverse remarks?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 27-2-1989 whereby his appeal was held to be incompetent and dismissed for that reason.
2.The Petitioner was a teacher in Grade-15 and was superseded for selection grade (B-17). His juniors were promoted and he was not. He challenged the action by an appeal to the Service Tribunal. In the reply to the averments made in memo of appeal, the Government had taken the stand that the record of the service of the Petitioner was not satisfactory and he was not considered suitable for promotion to the selection grade for that reason. The petitioner did not file any supplementary statement to contend that he had not been communicated any adverse remarks or that the Departmental Promotion Committee while judging his suitability, alongwith others, had committed any legal error. ~In the absence of it, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in fact he had been superseded for unsatisfactory record. As it was a matter of selection and suitability the Tribunal's jurisdiction did not extend to such cases.
3.Mr. M.S. Siddiqui, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that when the confidential record of the petitioner was produced before the Tribunal, indeed it contained some reports which were adverse to him. But, on an enquiry from the Tribunal it was not made clear whether those adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner or not. If they had not been communicated as claimed by the petitioner, they could not be taken into consideration by the Tribunal. In his affidavit, filed in this Court, the petitioner has taken stand that these ACRs "were re- written and reconstructed by Respondent No.1, at the time his promotion to T.G.T. Selection Grade was under consideration and some adverse remarks were deliberately included therein in order to bar his promotion".
4.If the petitioner wanted to raise a factual controversy he had to do so before the Tribunal. This is not the forum for entertaining the same for the first time stage. The petitioner should have actually filed a supplementary statement if he wanted to challenge the correctness or effect of the reply filed by the Government. Having not 'done that, and the question being of suitability, the judgment of the Departmental Promotion Committee must prevail and cannot be substituted by the Tribunal. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
Judges on this bench
- Shafiur Rahman2,457 judgments
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments