Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR ALI KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB And Another
The petitioner, an Additional District and Sessions Judge, challenged his seniority position relative to respondent No. 2, who had been placed senior to him in the seniority list. The petitioner had previously been senior to respondent No. 2 while serving as a Civil Judge. However, the Provincial Selection Board, on May 8, 1979, declared the petitioner unfit for promotion to the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge due to an indifferent service record, while approving respondent No. 2 for promotion. Consequently, the petitioner was superseded by respondent No. 2 and was not approved for promotion until March 10, 1981. The petitioner's departmental representation and subsequent appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal were dismissed. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim seniority over respondent No. 2 despite having been formally superseded by him during the promotion process. The Supreme Court held that because the petitioner was specifically superseded by respondent No. 2, he could not claim seniority over him in the higher grade. The petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Can a civil servant claim seniority over a colleague who was promoted to a higher grade earlier due to the civil servant's own supersession?
- Does a formal supersession by a selection board preclude a claim of seniority in the promoted grade?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-The petitioner is an Additional District and Sessions Judge. He has been placed junior to respondent No. 2 in the seniority list of Additional District and Sessions Judges. His departmental representation as well as the appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal have failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2.Admittedly, in the grade of Civil Judges, the petitioner was senior to respondent No. 2. However, on 8-5-1979, the Provincial Selection Board while considering promotion of Civil Judges to the rank of Additional Sessions Judges declared him unfit on account of indifferent service record. On the other hand, it approved respondent No. 2 for promotion. Thus, the petitioner stood superseded by respondent No. 2. The petitioner was not approved for promotion till 10-3-1981. Since the petitioner was specifically superseded by respondent No. 2, he could not claim seniority over the latter in the grade of Additional District and Sessions Judges. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Rustam S. Sidhwa1,121 judgments