QADIR BAKHSH vs GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN Through Secretary, S&GAD, Quetta And 8 Other
This civil appeal by leave of the Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 examines whether the Balochistan Service Tribunal correctly held that the appellant's service appeal was incompetent for non-compliance with section 22 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellant, a directly recruited Deputy Superintendent of Police, challenged a revised seniority list by filing a departmental representation after the list was allegedly not officially circulated or gazetted to him. Upon rejection of his representation, he approached the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal in limine for failure to exhaust departmental remedies. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal failed to record the objection with particularity or address the factual aspects, including limitation and the absence of a prescribed appellate authority for orders passed by the Government. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment, and remanded the matter to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law.
- Whether a service appeal is incompetent for non-compliance with section 22 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act 1974 without examining the specific facts regarding the circulation of a seniority list?
- Is a Service Tribunal required to record objections regarding the maintainability of an appeal with particularity and address them by reference to the facts of the case?
- How should a departmental representation be treated when the Government itself passed the original order and no specific appellate authority is prescribed?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 22, Balochistan Civil Servants Act 1974
- Section 4, Civil Service Tribunals Act 1974
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal was granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine whether the Service Tribunal by its judgment dated Pith of December, 1989, correctly held that the appeal was not competent for non-compliance with the requirements of section 22 of the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act, 1974.
2. The appellant was one of the directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police who felt aggrieved by a revision of seniority list to his prejudice, circulated by letter, dated 13-3-1985. The seniority list was not circulated to the appellant nor was it gazetted. By a representation dated 17- 5-1986, he brought his grievance before the Government with regard to it. On 23-4-1987 he was informed by the Government through his Department that his representation stood rejected. On 10- 5-1987, he approached the Service Tribunal with his grievance. An objection was taken by the Advocate-General appearing for the Government and it is noted and disposed of by the Tribunal in the following manner:--- "Objections in both the appeals against the appeal from the side of the learned defence counsel and learned Advocate-General are that mandatory departmental remedies had not been exhausted before the appellant came for adjudication before this Tribunal as required under section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1974, as well as under section 4 of the Civil Service Tribunals Act, 1974. We accept the stand taken on behalf of the respondents and are of the view that the appeal is not maintainable and could be filed in this Tribunal after having first exhausted all departmental remedies.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal, but make no orders as to costs."
3. Mr. S.A.M. Quadri, the learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant, contended that it was not at all clear from the order of the Service Tribunal as to what was the specific objection to the competency of the appeal before the Tribunal. The Provincial Government was the authority which had reframed the seniority list. No specific authority has been provided or prescribed for preferring appeals against the Orders of the Government. Even if there be one, the representation which was filed to the Government could be treated as appeal and dealt with by the competent authority. If it was a review which was competent, even then the representation could be taken to be a review petition and disposed of on merits.
4. If the objection to the competence of the service appeal was based on the ground of limitation then it was made clear in the memorandum of appeal that the prejudicial seniority list had not yet reached the appellant officially and that as soon as he came to know of it, he made a representation. Unless a finding of fact was recorded as to when the seniority list was gazetted or was circulated to the appellant, no adverse conclusion could be drawn either by the Service Tribunal or by this Court that the appeal was time-barred and not competent under section 22 of the Baluchistan Civil Servants Act. In any case, neither limitation nor in-competency of the representation was mentioned as a ground by the Government in dealing with it.
5. We find that the Service Tribunal has neither recorded the objection of the learned Advocate- General with particularity, nor has it dealt with it by reference to the facts of the case as reproduced above. In the circumstances, there is left no alternative but to accept this appeal and remand the proceedings to the Service Tribunal for disposal afresh in accordance with law. Order accordingly. No order as to costs.