Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZAHID ARIF VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.
1998 P L C (C
1998 P L C (C.S.) 456
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Ajmal Mian, Actg. CJ, Mamoon Kazi and Ch. Muhammad Arif JJ
ZAHID ARIF
versus
GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary S&GAD, Peshawar and 9 others
Civil Petition No. 331 of 1996, decided on 12th December, 1997
(On appeal from the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal dated 6-5-1996 passed in Service Appeal No.35 of 1992).
North-West Frontier Province (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989---
----R. 17(a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)---Seniority-- Appointment of civil servant to post in later selection---Petitioner's name had been placed next to respondents although he had been placed higher on merit list than respondents---Civil servant's appeal against seniority list had been dismissed mainly on the ground that respondents being nominees for first batch were to rank higher than civil servant on account of their initial selection---Rule 17(a), North-West Frontier Province (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, provided that person selected for appointment to post in earlier selection would rank senior to person selected in later selection---Judgment of Service Tribunal was not shown to suffer from any infirmity---Service Tribunal having acted in accordance with rule laid down in R. 17(a), North-West Frontier Province (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, its judgment did not appear to be open to any exception---Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents
Date of hearing: 12th December, 1997.
ORDER
MAMOON KAZI, J.---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 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) 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.
A.A./Z-4/S Leave refused.