AHMAD ALI vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 7 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his promotion prospects. The petitioner, a Sub-Engineer in the Public Works Department of Northern Areas, challenged the recruitment of private respondents as Assistant Executive Engineers, arguing that their appointment violated the 1980 Recruitment Rules, which mandated a 50% quota for promotees. The petitioner contended that the department had consistently exceeded the direct recruitment quota and that a subsequent 1990 notification, which reduced the promotee quota to 20%, should not apply to vacancies that arose prior to its promulgation. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the amended recruitment rules of 15-5-1990 apply retrospectively to vacancies that existed or were advertised before the amendment, thereby affecting the petitioner's entitlement to promotion under the previous regime. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to specifically examine the applicability of the amended rules to the petitioner's case, focusing on whether vested rights to promotion under prior regulations can be superseded by subsequent policy amendments.
- Does an amendment to recruitment rules apply to vacancies that arose or were advertised prior to the promulgation of the amendment?
- Can a government notification amending recruitment quotas retrospectively affect the promotion entitlement of an employee who qualified under the previous rules?
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 (8-16) 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 promotees 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 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.