Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AZAM MIRZA VS Respondent: CHAIRMAN, PAK-TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD
1994 P L C (C
1994 P L C (C.S.) 831
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Present: Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, Chairman and S.M. Ishaq, Member
MUHAMMAD AZAM MIRZA
versus
CHAIRMAN, PAK‑TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD and 44 others
Appeal No. 215(R) of 1993, decided on 19th September, 1993.
(a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Departmental. appeal against fixation of quota by Government was filed by appellant beyond period of limitation‑‑‑Appeal filed before Service Tribunal was incompetent for departmental appeal was filed beyond prescribed period of limitation and was, thus, liable to be dismissed on that score alone.
S.S. Qureshi and others v. Foreign Secretary 1985 SCMR 1953 and Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik 1990 SCMR 951 rel.
(b) Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Fixation of quota for direct recruitment of officers in B.P.S. 17‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Right of Government either to amend or change the rules for choosing its employees could not be abridged or restricted‑‑‑Department concerned had, thus, every right to fix quota or lay down new criteria for choosing its employees in the interest of its efficiency or to raise the efficiency of service‑‑‑No irregularity or unjustness was pointed out in the fixation of quota for direct recruitment of civil servants and for change of existing rules to that effect.
PLD 1988 SC 155 rel.
F.E. Siddiqi for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1993.
JUDGMENT
S.M. ISHAQ (MEMBER): ‑‑This appeal is directed against the order dated 24‑11‑1992 whereby the Recruitment Rules for the post of Accounts Officer (BPS‑17) in PTC were notified.
2. The facts are that in 1992 when the PTC advertised 20 posts of Accounts Officers (BPS‑17) for direct recruitment, the employees of the said Corporation filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, challenging the direct recruitment through open market. However, the respondents admitted before the High Court that 75% of the posts in BPS‑17 fell entirely to the share of departmental employees of the former T&T Department as such the said ratio would be kept intact.
3. The appellant's case is that despite the protection provided in the PTC Act, 1991, and the undertaking given before the Lahore High Court that the terms and conditions of departmental employees would be protected, the respondent‑PTC had notified the following method for recruitment for the post of Accounts Officer (BPS‑17) which is detriment to the interest of the employees of the PTC:‑‑
"Having been approved by PTC Board in the decision taken on agenda item No. 6 in the 30th PTC Board's meeting held on 12‑9‑1992, the following method for recruitment for the post of Accounts Officer (BPS‑17) in PTC is hereby notified as under:‑‑
(a) 75% of the posts of Accounts Officer (BPS‑17) will be filled by direct recruitment and
(b) 25% of the posts will be filled by promotion from the cadre of Accountants (BPS‑16) already working in PTC, but‑‑
(i) only those Departmental Accountants who are Graduate (B.Com./BA./B.Sc.) will be eligible for the said promotion, and
(ii) they will have to qualify a written examination for becoming eligible for the said promotion."
On the basis of above policy the PTC also advertised 38 posts of Accounts Officers (BPS‑17) on 16‑6‑1993 and the appellant feeling aggrieved filed a writ petition before the Honourable High Court but the learned Judge took the view that since he (the appellant) was a civil servant, therefore, the remedy for redress of his grievance lay before the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellant then filed the present appeal before this Tribunal on 17‑7‑1993.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that the impugned method for recruitment for the post of Accounts Officer (BPS‑17) in PTC was notified on 24‑11‑1992 and the appellant filed a dubious departmental appeal against the said method on 29‑3‑1993 and simultaneously filed a writ petition before the High Court. Under the law, the prescribed period for filing a departmental appeal against the impugned order is 30 days whereas in the instant case, as already stated, the impugned method was notified on 24‑11‑1992 and the appellant filed the departmental appeal on 29‑3‑1993 which was clearly beyond the period of limitation. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Qureshi and others v. Foreign Secretary (1985 SCMR 1953) has held that if a departmental appeal is filed after the period of limitation then the same is not an appeal in the eye of law and the appeal before the Tribunal is incompetent. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik 1990 SCMR 951. Following the above dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we hold that the present appeal is incompetent as the departmental appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
5. Coming to the merits of the case we find that it has been held in several cases including PLD 1988 SC 155 that the right of the Government either to amend or change or alter the rules for choosing its employees cannot be abridged or restricted. In this view of the matter, the PTC has every right to fix quota or for laying down new criteria for choosing its employees in the interest of its efficiency or to raise the efficiency of its service. We, therefore, find no irregularity or injustification in the action of the respondent‑PTC in fixing 75% and 25% quota respectively for ‑ direct recruitment. and the departmental promotees and also laying down the requisite qualifications as well as the examination for the amelioration of the Organization.
6. In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine on the question of limitation as well as on merits.
AA./928/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.