LAL DIN, CONSTABLE vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 2 others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a service matter concerning the refusal of the departmental authority to place the petitioner, a police constable, on List B1. The petitioner challenged the departmental order before the Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal on the grounds that the decision regarding his fitness for promotion was based on his service record, which included eighteen recorded punishments. The petitioner subsequently sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in upholding the departmental authority's decision to exclude the petitioner from the promotion list based on his service record. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authority acted within its jurisdiction by evaluating the petitioner's service record to determine his fitness for promotion. Finding no misreading of the record or legal infirmity in the Tribunal's judgment, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle established is that the assessment of a civil servant's fitness for promotion, when based on a review of their service record, is a matter of departmental discretion that does not warrant judicial interference absent a substantial question of law.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a departmental decision regarding a civil servant's fitness for promotion when based on their service record?
- Does the evaluation of a civil servant's fitness for promotion based on their service record constitute a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The petitioner was not found fit for placement of his name in List B1 on the ground that his service record was not good and he had 18 punishments in his credit.
2. The order of the departmental authority was challenged before the Service Tribunal by the petitioner by filing appeal which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 30- 10-2000 against which leave is sought.
3. It has been rightly held by the Service Tribunal that the question of fitness or otherwise of a person for bringing him in List B1 had been decided by the departmental authority on the basis of service record of the petitioner, therefore, there was no justification for interference.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not raised any substantial question of law of public importance as envisaged by Article 212 of the Constitution. It is a case in which the service record of the petitioner had been examined and made the basis for passing the order by the departmental authority.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to pursued us that the considerations wieghed with the departmenal authority were not legally justified. The service record provides material for determining fitness or otherwise of a civil servant which has been duly considered. It was not argued that the service record of the petitioner was misread by the departmental 'authority.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being meritless is hereby dismissed and .
Cited by 1 case
- TANVIR SHAUKAT vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NAROWAL and 3 others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1192