SECRETARY, NARCOTICS CONTROL DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD And Another vs MUHAMMAD SAJJAD And 4 Others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby service appeals filed by respondents, who were promoted Upper Division Clerks, were allowed. The respondents had grievances that they were bypassed for promotion to Assistants (BPS-11) in favour of their juniors, in violation of the rule of seniority-cum-fitness under the Recruitment Rules in Establishment Division's S.R.O. 248(1)88. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to examine the question of fitness and the validity of supersession based on findings of unfitness without supporting material such as Annual Confidential Reports. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Departmental Promotion Committee failed to provide proper and cogent reasons or refer to supporting material regarding the unfitness of senior civil servants, and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order remanding the cases to the appellate authority for fresh orders. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petitions were dismissed.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to examine the question of fitness in promotion matters?
- Can senior civil servants be superseded for promotion without cogent reasons and supporting material regarding their unfitness?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a Tribunal's order remanding a service matter for fresh consideration when no proper reasons were given by the Departmental Promotion Committee?
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---Respondents Muhammad Sajjad, Siraj Ahmed Jan, Javed Iqbal, Muhammad Anwar and Adil Nizam all promoted Upper Division Clerks filed the service appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal making grievance that they were bypassed and their juniors Muhammad Zubair Khan and Amir Mukhtar, directly appointed Upper Division Clerks, were promoted as Assistants (BPS-11), disregarding the rule of seniority-cum-fitness as contemplated in the Recruitment Rules in Establishment Division's S.R.O. 248(1)88. Objection was raised before the Federal Service Tribunal that it had no jurisdiction to go into the question of fitness, which was repelled in view of the rulings mentioned in the impugned order of the Tribunal and the appeals were allowed with direction to the appellate authority to review the cases and pass appropriate orders.
2. The learned Deputy Attorney-General contended before us that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction in respect of fitness and this question was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, which came to the conclusion that though the respondents were eligible for promotion but they were not fit. He produced before us the minutes of the Departmental promotion Committee, which have been perused by us. We are of the view that proper and cogent reasons have not been given for declaring respondent No.1 to be unfair and no reference has been made to their Annual Confidential Reports or any other Material supporting the factum of unfitness. Admittedly, the UDCs promoted are junior and no plausible reason has been given to justify their promotion over the heads of the others. Since the Tribunal has remanded the cases the appellate authority for fresh appropriate orders, we, in the interest of justice, decline to interfere with such order. In the result, leave is refused and the petitions are dismissed.
Cited by 5 cases
- ZAFAR ULLAH BALOCH vs GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and others 2002 SCMR 1056
- ZAFAR ULLAH BALOCH Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 2002 PLC(CS) 1002
- MUHAMMAD RAHIM KHAN vs THE CHIEF SECRETARY, N.-W.F.P. and 4 others 1999 PLC (C.S.) 1368
- MUHAMMAD RAHIM KHAN vs THE CHIEF SECRETARY, N.W.F.P. and 4 others 1999 SCMR 1605
- AZHAR HASSAN NADEEM and others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 6 others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1246