Syed ANWAR SHAH and 2 others vs Rana MUHAMMAD ASIF and another
The petitioners, who had a longer total length of service than respondent No. 1, were selected for promotion as Tehsildars in preference to him. Respondent No. 1 challenged this selection through a Constitution petition in the High Court, which allowed the petition by holding that seniority within the cadre of assistants, rather than total length of service, should govern the appointments. The petitioners sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction as the matter fell exclusively within the competence of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerned whether the controversy related to the fitness for promotion or the determination of principles governing selection, and whether the Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the controversy pertained to the terms and conditions of service and the correct principle governing selection rather than mere fitness, thereby falling within the competence of the Service Tribunal, and granted leave to appeal while restraining the demotion of the appellants.
- Does a dispute regarding the principle governing selection for promotion fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Did the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging the criteria used for promotion to Tehsildar?
- Is the determination of length of service versus cadre seniority for promotion a matter of fitness or a question relating to terms and conditions of service?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioners joined service as junior clerks before respondent No, 1; as such they were senior to him in the grade of junior clerks. HoWever, respondent No, 1 received his promotions as senior clerk and as assistant prior to the petitioners. Consequently, in the grade of assistant he became senior to them.
2. In the cadre of Tehsildars 17 per cent. Of the posts were required to be filled by promotion through selection on merits from amongst the subordinate officials such as assistants and senior scale stenographers working in the Board of Revenue and the officers subordinate to it who had at least three years' experience. The petitioners whose total length of service was longer than that of the respondent No,1, were selected for appointment in preference to him. He filed a Constitution petition in the High Court. It was allowed on the ground that while making appointments of Tehsildars the Selection Board should not have taken into consideration the total lengths of service of the officials but that it should have confined itself to the seniority in the cadre of assistants. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition of respondent No,1 as the matter. Fell exclusively within the competence of the Punjab Service Tribunal; It is to be noticed that this objection was also raised by the Government before the High Court but it was rejected on the ground that in this case the fitness to promotion of a Government servant was involved and that this controversy could not be raised before the Service.
Tribunal. It is stated that the view taken by the High Court is incorrect for the controversy related not to the fitness of respondent No,1 for promotion as Tehsildar but to the determination of the principle governing the selection of Tehsildars, that is, whether for the purpose of appointment as Tehsildar the service of an official as Assistant only should be relevant or that the entire service of the official should be taken into account. This question was to be decided in the light of the terms and conditions of the parties and was well within the competence of the Service Tribunal.
4. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
The appellants should not be demoted during the pendency of the appeal.