FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN vs IJAZ HUSSAIN MALIK
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment and orders of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent's appeal and directed the Central Selection Board to consider the respondent's promotion based on correct legal criteria. The core legal question addressed is whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing such directions regarding promotion consideration. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the order passed by the Tribunal was just, fair, and in accordance with the interests of justice, declining to interfere with it. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal against a fair and just order of the Service Tribunal that merely directs a competent board to consider a civil servant's promotion according to proper legal criteria.
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to direct the Central Selection Board to consider a civil servant's promotion in accordance with correct legal criteria?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction with a just and fair order of the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ.--- This is a petition for leave to appeal from the orders and judgment, dated the 18th February, 1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal accepting the appeal of the respondent and directing the Central Selection Board to consider the case of promotion of the respondent in accordance with the correct legal criteria, which were duly explained in the judgment.
2. The learned Deputy Attorney-General has submitted that the directions given by the Tribunal are in excess of its jurisdiction and its order, therefore, should be set aside.
3. We have given our earnest consideration to this plea. However, we are of the opinion, that the order passed is a just and fair order and any interference therewith would be against the interests of justice.
4. This case is not, therefore, a fit discretionary jurisdiction in the matter of granting leave to appeal.
5. Leave is accordingly refused. This petition shall accordingly stand dismissed.