Syed ANWAR SHAH And 2 Others vs Rana MUHAMMAD ASIF And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the promotion criteria for the post of Tehsildar. The petitioners, who were junior to respondent No. 1 in the cadre of assistants but possessed longer total length of service, were selected for promotion as Tehsildars. Respondent No. 1 challenged this selection in the High Court, which ruled that the Selection Board erred by considering total length of service rather than seniority within the cadre of assistants. The petitioners contend that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, arguing the matter fell exclusively within the competence of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioners assert that the controversy did not concern the fitness of the respondent for promotion, but rather the interpretation of the principles governing selection, which relates to the terms and conditions of service. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the need to examine whether the High Court correctly assumed jurisdiction over a matter arguably within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal, and ordered that the appellants not be demoted during the pendency of the appeal.
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding promotion criteria when the matter falls within the competence of the Service Tribunal?
- Is a dispute regarding the principles governing selection for promotion a matter of 'fitness' for promotion, or a matter relating to terms and conditions of service?
- Can a High Court intervene in a selection process where the controversy involves the interpretation of rules governing the selection of Tehsildars?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioners joined service as junior clerks before respondent No. l; as such they were senior to him in the grade of junior clerks. However, respondent No. l received his promotions as senior clerk and as assistant prior to the petitioners. Consequently, in the grade of assistants 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 offices 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. l 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 A No. l 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 officials 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.