Prof. MUMTAZ ALI KHAN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 2 others
The petitioner, an Associate Professor in BPS-19, challenged the promotion of a junior colleague to a B-20 position, arguing that the Departmental Promotion Committee/Central Selection Board guidelines were misapplied to him. The Service Tribunal had previously rejected his claim, stating he failed to demonstrate that his role as a Principal of Federal Government Colleges placed him within the 'specialist cadres' exempt from Parts II and III of the guidelines. Upon appeal, the petitioner contended that Part IV of the guidelines explicitly excludes civil servants in specialist cadres—specifically including teachers and professors—from the requirements of Parts II and III when seeking promotion within their own line of specialism. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the petitioner, as a professor, falls within the specialist cadre exemption defined in Part IV of the guidelines, thereby challenging the Tribunal's finding that he was subject to the criteria of Parts II and III.
- Does Part IV of the guidelines for the Departmental Promotion Committee/Central Selection Board exclude professors from the requirements of Parts II and III when promoting within their own line of specialism?
- Are teachers and professors considered part of the 'specialist cadres' under the guidelines for promotion of civil servants?
ORDER
' FAZAL KARIM, J.---The petitioner is an Associate Professor in BPS-19. According to him he was the senior most Associate Professor when a post in B-20 fell vacant. He was considered but "failed to come up to the qualifying score" and the post went to Mr.Sajjad Akbar respondent, who was admittedly junior to the petitioner. One of the contentions raised before the Tribunal was that the petitioner belongs to the specialist cadres and the instructions contained in Parts II and III of the guidelines for Departmental Promotion committee/Central Selection Board were wrongly applied to him. That contention was repelled by the Tribunal with the observation that the petitioner had "failed to explain that as Principal of the Federal Government Colleges, Cant. Board how he fell within the cadre of "specialists" to claim exemption of Parts II and III ". Learned counsel for the petitioner has called our attention to Part IV of those guidelines to point out that part itself excludes the application of Parts II and III "to civil servants who are in specialist cadres such as doctors, teachers and professors, research scientists and incumbents of purely technical posts for promotion within their own line of specialism".
2. Leave to appeal is granted inter alia to consider this contention. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.