Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD MUNSIF VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND WORKS, LAHORE
2000 P L C (C
2000 P L C (C.S.) 1070
[Lahore High Court]
Before Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J
MUHAMMAD MUNSIF and others
versus
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION AND WORKS, LAHORE through Secretary and others
Writ Petition No.3370‑S of 1996, decided on 10th November, 1999.
Civil service----------
‑‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Departmental Promotion Committee approved civil servant for promotion to Assistant Engineer/Sub‑Divisional Officer (B.S. 17) subject to production of satisfactory A.C.F. and verification of B.Sc. Engineering degree which was complied with by civil servants‑‑‑Such recommendations were subsequently withdrawn by Departmental Promotion Committee off ground that civil servants were not registered as Professional Engineers with Pakistan Engineering Council‑‑‑Provisions of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975 being not applicable to civil servants, approval/recommendation for promotion could not be withdrawn on said ground when civil servants had fulfilled all conditions necessary for their promotion‑‑‑Civil servants would be deemed to have beets recommended by Departmental Promotion Committee.
Fida Hussain v. The Secretary to the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad Suo Motu Review Petition No.3 of 1995 ref.
Syed Aqa Asif Jafari for Petitioners. Khadim Nadim Malik, Addl. A.‑G. .for Respondents
Date of hearing: 10th November, 1999.
JUDGMENT
Through this writ petition the petitioners who are Sub‑Engineers (of BS‑16) seek promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineers/Sub‑Divisional Officers (BS‑17).
2. According to the writ petition Departmental Promotion Committee approved the petitioners for promotion to the said posts subject to production of a satisfactory ACR for the year 1985 by petitioner No. l and for the period from 27‑3‑1984 to 31‑12‑1984 by petitioner No.2 and verification of B.Sc. Engineering degree for both. This was done vide minutes of the meeting dated 24‑4‑1995 (Annexure C). The conditions imposed by the D.P.C. were met. However, on 28‑8‑1995 the D.P.C. withdrew the recommendations on the ground that the petitioners were not registered as Professional Engineers with the Pakistan Engineering Council. The contention of the petitioners is that the provisions of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975, are not applicable to them. The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing vide order dated 4‑6‑1996 when a notice was issued to the respondents. In response the learned Additional Advocate‑General appeared on 18‑10‑1997. The case was adjourned from time to time. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents and it shall be deemed that the factual contents of the petition stand admitted.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the sole ground on which the recommendation of the petitioners for promotion to BS‑17 was withdrawn is not available to the respondents and in support of the said arguments relies on the case of Fida Hussain v. The Secretary to the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affair Division, Islamabad (Suo Motu Review Petition No.3.‑‑) decided by the Supreme Court on 5‑6‑1995. The said judgment does hold that the provisions of Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975 are not applicable to petitioners who are employees of respondent No. l . The Law Officer has not been able to controvert the said legal position. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the proceedings of the D.P.C. conducted on 283‑1995 inasmuch as the recommendation of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers/Sub‑Divisional Officers (BS‑ 17) was withdrawn on the touchstone of Notification No. SRO85(1)/95, dated 25‑1‑1995 insisting that a candidate for initial recruitment must be registered with the Pakistan Engineering Council, are declared to be illegal and void. The result would be that if the petitioners fulfil the other qualifications as prescribed, they shall be deemed to have been recommended by the D.P.C. for promotion as held by the D.P.C. in its meeting dated 24‑4‑1995. No order as to costs.
H. B.T / M-182/L? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.