Case Summary & Legal Holding

This judicial decision was delivered by the SUPREME-COURT. The matter involves proceedings between MASOOD AHMED CHANGWANI and DIRECTOR-GENERAL, BUREAU.OF EMIGRATION AND OVERSEASEMPLOYMENT, ISLAMABADHonorable Justice SAIDUZLAMAN SIDDIQUITanveer Bashir Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar-Ali,Fazal Elahi Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, officially reported as 1995 PLC(CS) 785. 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.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1995 P L C (C

1995 P L C (C.S.) 785

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, JJ

MASOOD AHMED CHANGWANI

versus

DIRECTOR‑GENERAL, BUREAU OF EMIGRATION AND OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT ISLAMABAD and 4 others

Civil Petition No. 359 of 1994, decided on 21st December, 1994.

(On appeal from the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 7‑6‑1994 passed in Appeal No. 207‑R of 1994).

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Art. 212 (3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Civil servant's representation against Provisional Seniority List still pending decision before departmental authority‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Combined seniority list issued by department which according to civil servant was Provisional Seniority List wherein he was shown to be junior to respondent‑‑‑Until such time seniority claimed by civil servant was allowed by the department, he could not claim his promotion over and above respondents on basis of seniority‑‑‑Civil servant's appeal before Service Tribunal in absence of determination of his claim of seniority over respondents, therefore, could not succeed‑‑‑No case for interference with order of Service Tribunal was made out‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

Tanveer Bashir Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar‑Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Fazal Elahi Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court with Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 6 to 8.

Date of hearing: 21st December, 1994.

JUDGMENT

SAIDUZLAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 7‑6‑1994 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed in limine the service appeal filed by the petitioner holding it to be bared under the provisions of section 4(1) proviso (b) of the Service Tribunal Act 1973.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking leave to appeal contended before us that the view taken by the learned Tribunal was not correct as the petitioner was not seeking his promotion through the appeal filed before the Tribunal. The learned counsel referred us to the prayer in the appeal which is as follows:

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted, the impugned order of promotion of Respondents Nos. 4 to 7 may be held to be illegal, incompetent and without any legal effect, on account of their being ineligible for promotion and junior to the appellant who also stands approved for promotion and he may be ordered to be promoted from the same date from which they were promoted with all consequential benefits.

It is further prayed that any other relief which this Hon ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper may also be ordered:"

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the appeal the petitioner had contended that the promotion of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 in the present petition, was illegal as they were ineligible for promotion and were also junior to the petitioner in service, The learned counsel for the petitioner however, conceded before us that in the provisional seniority list issued by the department, the petitioner is shown junior to respondents Nos. 4 to 7 and that his representation against the provisional seniority list is still pending decision before the departmental authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred us to the minutes of the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee‑I (D.P.C.) in which respondents Nos. 4 to 7 as well as the petitioner were cleared for promotion to the next post namely, Assistant Director (BPS‑17). The learned counsel accordingly, contended that as the petitioner was cleared alongwith respondents Nos. 4 to 7 for promotion as Assistant Director (BPS‑17), he being senior should have been promoted, and therefore, promotion of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 without promoting the. petitioner, was illegal and without jurisdiction. We have already referred earlier that in the combined seniority list issued by the department and which according to the petitioner is a provisional seniority list, the petitioner was shown as junior to respondents Nos. 4 to 7, therefore, until such time the seniority claimed by the petitioner was allowed by the department the petitioner cannot claim his promotion over and above respondents Nos. 4 to 7 on the basis of seniority. The appeal of the petitioner before the Tribunal in the absence of determination of his claim of seniority over respondents Nos. 4 to 7, therefore, could not succeed. No case for interference with the order of A Service Tribunal is made out. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

AA./M‑2239/S Petition dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from SUPREME-COURT
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant