Dr. MUHAMMAD AZEEM KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division arts

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Dr. MUHAMMAD AZEEM KHAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division arts. 199 & 112---Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21), Rules, 2019, Rr. 8 & 10(5)---Promotion---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Fitness for promotion, determination of---Exclusive jurisdiction of authorities---Exception---Officers of Police Service including Petitioners were considered for promotion from BPS-20 to BPS-21---Officers Central Selection Board (CSB) recommended "supersession" of petitioners in a meeting and did not promote them---Petitioners contended that after supersession instead of waiting for full one year, another CSB meeting was held in which petitioners were again superseded through impugned orders; that in CSB meeting only one year PER was considered whereas other PERs in which petitioners were found to be excellent" were not considered; that no adverse material was there in PER, but the same was found from somewhere by CSB; that High Court had concurrent jurisdiction in the matter; that petitioners challenged the impugned orders being against Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019, hence constitutional petition was maintainable---Held, that meeting of CSB took place and impugned order/letter communicated in Federal Capital Territory, but the Federal Government was functioning all over the country, and petitioners being residents of the province could agitate their grievance within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of said province in which the impugned orders had affected them---High Court had concurrent jurisdiction of adjudicating the matter---Matters being for determination of fitness of civil servants for promotion, Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction in the matter and bar of art. 112 of the Constitution was not applicable---Under R. 10(5) of the Rules, 2019 civil servant once superseded for promotion under R. 8 of the Rules, 2019, would be eligible for reconsideration only after earning one more PER of full year---Once the petitioners were superseded by CSB in its meeting under R.8(a), their cases could only be reconsidered for promotion after they earn one more PER of full one year as required under R.10(5) of the Rules, 2019---argument made by Law Officer that in decision of CSB , PERs of 2018 were considered, whereas in CSB meeting , 2021, the PERs of 2019 were considered---Such an argument had no legs to stand in view of said R.10(5)---Question of fitness/ suitability for promotion had always been considered to be exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority not shared by Courts/ Tribunals, exercising supervisory jurisdiction in respect of eligibility/ qualification---However, said principle was not attracted to cases where question was not substitution of an opinion of the competent authority but the vires of orders passed by CSB and competent authority were in question being against R.10(5) of the Rules, 2019---all the instant Constitutional petitions were allowed and respondents/authorities were directed to reconsider cases of petitioner for promotion.

Dr. MUHAMMAD AZEEM KHAN vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division arts — 2022 PLD 302 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD