Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 1998 SCMR 633
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Pakistan
Year of Decision: 1997
Decision Date: 1997-12-12
Parties: ZAHID ARIF vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, S&GAD, Peshawar and 9 others
This judicial decision was delivered by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 1997-12-12. The matter involves proceedings between ZAHID ARIF and GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, S&GAD, Peshawar and 9 others, officially reported as 1998 SCMR 633. The court reviewed applicable Pakistani statutes, procedural requirements, and governing case-law authorities. The full text below contains the complete facts, arguments, and legal reasoning rendered by the honorable bench.
Case cited as 1998 SCMR 633
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Arif, Mamoon Kazi, Ajmal Mian Title:ZAHID ARIF vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, S&GAD,
Peshawar and 9 others Case No.: Civil Petition No, 331 of 1996 Appeal No,35 of 1992 Date of Judgment:1997-12-12 Reported As: 1998 SCMR 633 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' MAMOON KAZI, ACTG. CJ.---The petitioner, an engineer, was serving as S.D.O. In Building Sub- Division at Peshawar. 2. It may be pointed out that (C & W) Department placed a request with the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission for selection of suitable candidates for appointment against quota meant for direct recruitment. The N.-W.F.P.Public Service Commission recommended 10 candidates for appointment. Subsequently, more vacancies occurred and the Commission recommended 8 candidates, including the petitioner, who was placed at Serial No,3 on the merit list. Subsequently, first batch of 12 officers was recommended for appointment in September, 1977, but the same did not include the petitioner. The petitioner was, however, recommended for appointment in the second batch in April, 1978. 3 The respondent department thereafter issued a tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineers, vide order dated 2-7-1989, placing the petitioner's name at Serial No,39. The petitioner felt aggrieved because respondents Nos.3 to 10 had been shown senior to him. However, the petitioner's request was ultimately declined. Thereafter, the petitioner first filed a departmental appeal and then he approached the Service Tribunal for redress. His appeal has, however, been dismissed and hence the present petition, for leave to appeal. 4. Although, there was no controversy in regard to the fact that the petitioner's name had been placed higher on the merit list than the said respondents, but his appeal was mainly dismissed on the ground that the said respondents being nominees for the first batch, were to rank higher than the petitioner on account of their initial selection. Reference was made by the Tribunal to rule 17(a)
---
## Page 2
of the North-West Frontier (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which provides that "a person selected for appointment to post in an earlier selection shall rank senior to person selected in a later selection" . 5. Mr. Qazi Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not been unable to show that the judgment of the Tribunal suffers from any infirmity. The Tribunal has acted in accordance with the rule laid down in rule 17(a) and the judgment of the Tribunal does not appear to be open to exception. ' In the result, leave to appeal is refused.