BLUR TEXT vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 6-7-1993, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his claim for promotion from an earlier date. The petitioner, who joined the T&T Department in 1966 and acquired a B.Sc. degree in June 1985, sought promotion as Assistant Engineer (BPS-16) from June 1985 against the reserved quota, but was only promoted on 27-5-1991. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was rightly denied promotion from June 1985 and whether the Service Tribunal misread the record regarding his consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications from June 1985 and the Tribunal committed a misreading of the record regarding his case before the D.P.C., leave to appeal should be granted to examine the matter further. The key principle laid down is that eligibility and fulfillment of qualifications entitle an employee to be considered for promotion, and a misconception or misreading of record by a tribunal regarding promotion consideration warrants interference through leave to appeal.
- Whether eligibility for promotion guarantees automatic promotion from the date qualifications are acquired?
- Does a misreading of the record by the Service Tribunal regarding consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Is an employee entitled to promotion against a reserved quota from the date they fulfill the prescribed qualifications?
ORDER
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 6-7-1993.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner joined T&T Department, as a Telecom. Technician, in 1966.
He was promoted to the post of Engineering Supervisor (B-11) with effect from 1-8-1977. By Gazette Notification dated September 2, 1981, the Sub-Engineer, eligible for promotion to BPS-16 should possess Diploma in Engineering or B.Sc. Should have rendered 10 years service in T& T Department and should have also passed the qualifying examination. 25 per cent. Quota was reserved for persons holding B.Sc. Degrees; the remaining 75% posts di Assistant Engineers (BPS-16) had to be filled in on seniority-cum-fitness basis. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in accordance with SOR-1977(I)/81, dated 15-8-1981, the petitioner fulfilled all qualifications for regular promotion as Assistant Engineer/SDO (BPS-16) w,e,f. June, 1985, when he obtained B.Sc. Degree. The petitioner made repeated request's that he be given promotion as Assistant Engineer (BPS-16) w,e,f. June, 1985. He was promoted on 27-5-1991. Since the petitioner had not been promoted from June 1985, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
The learned Tribunal observed that eligibility is not consideration for promotion, but there are other factors also which are subject to scrutiny by the D.P.C. To assess the suitability and fitness of a person for promotion to a particular post. His case was considered by the D.P.C. Held on 5-7-1988, but was not approved. He was correctly promoted, on his turn on seniority-cum-fitness basis on 27-5-1991.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that eligibility if the petitioners been determined by the Tribunal and it is also not disputed by the Department, but the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that his case was considered by the D.P.C. Held on 5-7-1988. The case of the department is that he was not eligible to be considered in the D.P.C. Held on 5-7-1988. He was promoted on his turn on seniority-cum-fitness basis on 27-5-1991. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner was not considered for promotion in the D.P.C. Held on 5-7-1988. There is clear misreading made by the Tribunal. It is not the case of the department that he was not found fit for promotion before 1988. As the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications for promotion w,e,f. June 1985, therefore, prima facie he was eligible for consideration for regular promotion against 25 per cent quota. Leave to appeal is granted.