RAHIM AHMAD vs N. W.F.P. SERVICE TRIBUNAL, PESHAWAR And Other
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by Rahim Ahmad against the decision of the N.W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar. The core legal questions involve whether the Service Tribunal could legally ignore factual findings made by departmental authorities regarding the absence of a genuine departmental examination used to manipulate seniority, and whether certain findings regarding temporary promotions and seniority were manifestly incorrect. The Supreme Court granted leave under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Holding in favor of the appellant, the Court found merit in the appeal, determining that the appellant's seniority should be counted from the order dated 27-2-1980 placing him senior to the contesting respondent. The key principle laid down is that service tribunals cannot arbitrarily disregard factual determinations made by competent departmental authorities concerning service matters and seniority manipulation.
- Could the Service Tribunal completely ignore the factual finding of a departmental authority regarding the absence of a genuine departmental examination?
- Whether the finding of the Service Tribunal concerning the temporary promotion and seniority of the respondent was manifestly incorrect?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal is granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine the following questions of law of public importance:--
(1) Could the Service Tribunal completely ignore the factual finding of departmental authority to the following effect:-- "A departmental examination envisages a number of candidates as well as the holding of an actual examination. It does not appear to have been held. In the present case it was an excuse used for shifting the seniority.
2. Under the circumstances I Find that the appeal of Rahim Ahmad holds merit and his seniority should count from the order of 27-2-1980, which places him senior to Abdur Rashid. The appeal is thus, accepted." and sanctify the selection of the respondent No.5 suffering from such a taint?
(2) Whether the finding of Service Tribunal to the effect that "it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the promotion order of respondent No.4 was temporarily made in his own pay and scale. So in no way it conferred upon respondent No.4 the seniority over appellant", is manifestly incorrect. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.