Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AFTAB-UR-REHMAN MIR VS Respondent: CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN BANKING COUNCIL,Shahid Anwar Bajwa
2008 P L C (C
2008 P L C (C.S.) 132
[Lahore High Court]
Before Syed Zahid Hussain and Muhammad Khalid Alvi, JJ
AFTAB-UR-REHMAN MIR
Versus
CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN BANKING COUNCIL and others
Intra-Court Appeal No.265 of 2006, decided on 8th October, 2007.
Civil service---
----Promotion---Interference in such matters by courts has to be minimal.
Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2006 SC 602; Riazul Hassan v. Hidayat Ullah PLD 1975 Lah. 841; Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC 220; The Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Hossain Mia PLD 1965 SC 1 and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others v. Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao and others PLD 1992 SC, 723 ref.
Aish Muhammad and 68 others v. Pakistan and 75 others 1985 SCMR 774; Secretary, Government of Sindh Education Department and another v. Syed Riyazul Hassan Zaidi and another 1986 SCMR 64; Syed Noorul Hasan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others 1987 SCMR 598 and Dr. Muhammad Hussain v. Principal, Ayub Medical College and another PLD 2003 SC 143 rel.
Appellant in person.
Yawar Ali Khan Dy. Attorney-General for Pakistan.
Ali Akbar Qureshi Amicus Curriae.
Shahid Anwar Bajwa for Respondent No.2.
ORDER
This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed against judgment dated 17-3-1996 whereby Writ Petition No.3878 of 1996 was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
The appellant (who appears in person) and the learned counsel for the respondents have been heard.
The appellant, who was officer in the respondent Habib Bank Limited, feeling aggrieved of his non-promotion and promotion of others as Assistant Vice-Presidents and Vice-Presidents had sought a direction to the respondent Bank for his promotion to the higher grade. He had alleged discriminatory treatment in the matter. The petition came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge on 17-3-1996 who took the view that the Habib Bank Limited "is merely a limited company although its interest vests in the Federal Government. Learned counsel has not shown me any rules governing employment of the petitioner. Policy directive referred to, cannot be said to be a statutory provision. In the circumstances, it will have to be concluded that the employment is governed exclusively by the principle of master and servant." It was further held that "claim to be promoted is something which has been repeatedly held to be nobody's vested right. If the petitioner is wrongly denied the chances of promotion, the petitioner will be entitled to sue them for damages, if such a course was otherwise legal and available." Against the dismissal of the petition, he filed Intra-Court Appeal No.252 of 1996, during the pendency of which S.2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 intervened and the appeal was dismissed as incompetent on 12-5-1999. The appellant is said to have filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was dismissed on 12-12-2002. He then assailed the matter before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, which met its fate in view of the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court .of Pakistan in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2006 SC 602. He thus reverted back to this Court and filed the present Intra-Court Appeal.
Some important developments nave taken place during this period, such as promotion of the appellant in the year 2000, privatization of the Habib Bank Limited in the year 2004 and the retirement of the appellant from service. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that besides the correctness of the view taken by the learned Single Judge, this appeal is liable to be dismissed due to the intervening events and changes in law. Reference in this context has been made to Riazul Hassan v. Hidayat Ullah PLD 1975 Lah. 841, Mst. Amina Begum and others v. Mehar Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC 220, The Province of East Pakistan v. Muhammad Hossain Mia PLD 1965 SC 1 and Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, Islamabad and others v. Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao and others PLD 1992 SC 723. There can be no cavil so far as the proposition of law laid down by the Superior Courts is concerned. It is also equally important to keep in view another principle well established that in matters of promotions of civil servants even, the interference by Court has been minimal. In Aish Muhammad and 68 others v. Pakistan and 75 others 1985 SCMR 774 it was held that "Fitness being essentially a matter of subjective assessment by the promoting authority which is not controlled by any rule or regulation, the aggrieved servant cannot complain that his non-selection involved a breach of any of the terms and conditions of his service." In Secretary, Government of Sindh Education Department and another v. Syed Riyazul Hassan Zaidi and another 1986 SCMR 64 it was held that criterion for making promotion to the higher grade implies a decision by the competent authority according to the individual judgment of such authority and that "An outside forum in the very nature of thing cannot sit in appeal and review the judgment of the competent authority regarding the fitness for promotion of a civil servant." In Syed Noorul Hasan v. The Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others 1987 SCMR 598 it was held that "promotion cannot be demanded as of right and seniority by itself cannot confer any absolute right" and it is for the competent authority to determine the suitability by taking into account multiple matters. In Dr. Muhammad Hussain v. Principal, Ayub Medical College and another PLD 2003 SC 143 it was again reiterated that no one could claim vested right for promotion and that it was for the departmental authority to make determination. Since the appellant is not likely to succeed for these reasons, we need not embark upon other aspects of the matter.
In view of the legal position prevailing in the matter, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal accordingly.
S.A.K./A-219/L Appeal dismissed.