AHMAD ALI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And 7 Other
The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer in the Public Works Department of Northern Areas, sought leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal judgment regarding his promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to promotion under the Recruitment Rules of 1980, which allocated 50% of such posts to promotees. He argued that the department had exceeded the direct recruitment quota by filling 28 out of 35 posts through direct recruitment, and that subsequent direct recruitments further violated this quota. A central legal issue arose concerning the applicability of a 1990 amendment to the recruitment policy, which reduced the promotee quota to 20%. The petitioner argued that since the vacancies arose and advertisements were issued prior to the May 1990 amendment, the amended rules should not apply to his case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner's right to promotion is governed by the recruitment rules in force at the time the vacancies arose or by the subsequent amended policy of 15-5-1990.
- Does a change in recruitment policy apply to vacancies that arose and were advertised prior to the amendment?
- Is a government servant entitled to be considered for promotion under the rules in force at the time the vacancy occurred?
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Service Tribunal by which his appeal was dismissed.
2. The petitioner joined the Public Works Department of Northern Areas, as a Sub-Engineer on 25- 10-1971. He was promoted as Assistant Engineer (B-16) on 25-4-1984. The private respondents were recruited as Assistant Executive Engineer on ad hoc basis against the promotion quota. The petitioner objected to it and represented that he may be considered for promotion against two of the posts. The petitioner relied on Recruitment Rules framed on 17-8-1980 which provided that 50% of the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer were to be filled by promotion and remaining 50% by direct recruitment. According to the petitioner there were 35 posts of Assistant Executive Engineer during the period from the year 1981 and that out of those 35 posts only seven had been given to the promoters whereas the remaining 28 were filled by direct recruits. It was also pointed out that on 12-8-1987 nine more Assistant Executive Engineers were directly recruited. Thus, their number is in excess of their quota. It seems that on 15-5-1990 a notification was issued amending the policy of recruitment. By this amendment only 20% of the posts of Assistant Executive Engineers were to go to the quota of promotees while the rest was to be filled by direct recruitment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Executive Engineer which fell vacant during February or March 1990 was issued on 18-3-1990. He contended that as the recruitment rules were amended on 15-5-1990, it will not 4 apply to the petitioner, who had become entitled to promotion according to the old Rules before the promulgation of the amended rules. We grant leave to consider the question whether the petitioner would be governed by the amended rules of 15-5-1990.
AA./A-1089/S