IFTIKHAR AHMAD RANDHAWA and anothers vs Mian MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and 2 others
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had directed the consideration of respondent No. 1 for promotion to the post of Electric Inspector effective from 25-3-1989. The Tribunal's decision was based on an admission by the Provincial Government regarding the availability of a vacancy on that date. The petitioners contend that the vacancy actually arose on 24-10-1988, at which time the respondent was ineligible for promotion under the relevant recruitment rules, specifically Rule 5(4) as amended by a 1969 notification. Furthermore, the petitioners argue that the respondent failed to disclose that his prior constitutional petition seeking the same relief had been dismissed in limine by the High Court, and that he failed to implead the necessary party (the person promoted to the post) in his service appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal erred in granting relief despite these procedural and substantive omissions, and ordered the suspension of the impugned judgment pending final adjudication.
- Can a service tribunal grant relief to a public servant when the person promoted to the disputed post has not been impleaded as a respondent?
- Does the failure to disclose the dismissal of a prior constitutional petition regarding the same relief affect the maintainability of a subsequent service appeal?
- Is a service tribunal's judgment sustainable if it relies on an incorrect date for the availability of a vacancy and fails to consider relevant amendments to recruitment rules?
- Rule 5(4), West Pakistan Electric Inspectors and Assistant Electric Inspectors Recruitment Rules 1963
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---This order will dispose of two petitions for leave to Appeal No, 857 of 1997 and 1361-L of 1997 as both are directed against one judgment.
2. The appeal filed by Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No,1 was accepted by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal and he (Muhammad Tufail) was declared to be entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Electric Inspector w.e.f, 25-3-1989 and consequently the departmental authorities were directed to process and place the case of Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No,1 before the relevant committee within a period of two months.
3. The aforesaid declaration and direction was issued as the Petitioners in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,1361-L of 1997/ the Provincial Government Department in its comments had admitted that a vacancy of Electric. Inspector became available on 25-3-1989 and the Tribunal was of the view that under the West Pakistan Electric Inspectors and Assistant Electric Inspectors Recruitment Rules, 1963 he could not have been considered ineligible had he (respondent No,1 herein) been considered for promotion in 1989.
4. Sh. Altaf Ilahi, learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that the vacancy of Electric Inspector became available on 24-10-1998 and not with effect from 25-3-1989 and on the said date Iftikhar Ahmed Randhawa had become eligible having served as Assistant Electric Inspector for five years, his date of appointment being 25-6-1984, while Mian Muhammad Tufail was not eligible as his date of promotion to the post of Assistant Electric Inspector is 12-8-1985 and that in any case Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No,1 was ineligible under Rule 5(4) of the Rules as amended vide notification dated 29-11-1969. This notification amending rule 5(4) of the Rules was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. It was also pointed out that Mian Muhammad Tufail respondent No,1 had invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for seeking the same relief as granted by the Service Tribunal by filing Constitution Petition No,1176 of 1995 but said Writ Petition was dismissed in limine. The order so passed by the High Court was also not brought to the notice of the Service Tribunal. It was contended that no relief could legally be granted by the Service Tribunal in the appeal as Iftikhar Ahmed Randhawa who was promoted as Electric Inspector was not impleaded as a respondent in. The service appeal filed by the respondent No,1.
5. The points raised require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted to examine the aforenoted contentions.
6. Order suspending operation of the impugned judgment shall continue.