TARIQ MUHAMMAD vs FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Ss — 2024 PLC(CS) 1546 ISLAMABAD

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

TARIQ MUHAMMAD VS FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Ss.7(3)(b) & 7(3)(d)---Candidature for participating in the Promotional Examination, rejection of---Promotion---Prescribed length of service---Previous penalty---Effect---Appellant, who was appointed as Patrol Officer (BS-14) in the National Highways and Motorways Police (NH&MP), assailed memorandum dated 18.07.2019 issued by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) whereby his review petition against order dated 18.06.2019 was dismissed; vide said dismissal order, the appellant's application against the rejection of his candidature for participating in the Section Officers Promotional Examination, 2016 ('SOPE, 2016'), was turned down by the FPSC---Plea of the appellant before FPSC was that in the SOPE, 2016, he had emerged at serial No.1 on the merit list, however, the FPSC did not include his name amongst the candidates who had been recommended suitable for appointment as Section Officers---Position taken by the respondents (NH&MP and FPSC) was that the NH&MP did not issue a Departmental Permission Certificate (DPC) to the appellant as he did not have the required length of service for having remained out of service for about eight years as major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on him---Contention of the appellant/ candidate was that the prescribed length of regular service be considered on account of his re-instatement order passed by the Federal Services Tribunal and that he had Departmental Permission Certificate (DPC) issued by the NH&MP---Validity---Record revealed that when the concerned Deputy Inspector General, NH&MP (DIG) came to know about the DPC-in-question issued to the appellant , he proceeded to enquire about whether the said DPC was genuine or not; and finally, the DIG withdrew the DPC-in-question---Record also revealed that the appellant had preferred anappeal before the Federal Services Tribunal (FST) against the order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on him was converted into minor penalties (stoppage of increment for two years, and censure); then he had also preferred an appeal against the NH&MP's decision to treat the period during which he had remained out of service as extraordinary leave without pay ;the FST upheld one minor penalty (of stoppage of two increments ) ; as regards the period during which the appellant had remained out of service on account of having been dismissed from service, the FST held that the intervening period would be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in Serial No.32.10 of Esta Code, 2015, Page 868 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported as 2010 SCMR 11; after that, on 06.06.2023, the NH&MP issued office order dated 06.06.2023, according to which the period between 10.10.2012 and 08.11.2017 was treated as "on-duty" with all consequential benefits---Said judgment dated 25.03.2020 passed by the FST had become the basis for the appellant to assert that he had the prescribed length of regular service of eight years for him to be appointed by the FPSC as Section Officer---Although appellant stood reinstated in service and the period during which he had remained out of service due to his dismissal had been converted into service on-duty, but that was not done until the NH&MP's office order dated 06.06.2023 which was issued on the basis of the FST' s judgment dated 25.03.2020---In other words, if the NH&MP's office order dated 06.06.2023 had not been issued, the appellant would not have the requisite length of eight years of regular service in order to be eligible for the SOPE, 2016---However, the fact remained that when the appellant applied to take part in the SOPE, 2016, he had been dismissed from service and that fact had been concealed by him in his application dated 22.12.2016 submitted to the FPSC---Therefore, the FPSC did not commit any illegality by not accepting the appellant's eligibility for participation in SOPE, 2016 without a valid DPC issued by the NH&MP---On the other hand, it was the appellant who made mis-statement (in his application dated 22.12.2016 in response to the advertisement issued by the FPSC inviting applications from eligible candidates to take part in the SOPE, 2016) as he had been dismissed from service vide office order dated 10.10.2012 and had not been reinstated in service until 08.11.2017---High Court had no reason to interfere with the orders dated 18.06.2019 and 18.07.2019 passed by the FPSC rejecting his candidature for participation in the SOPE-2016---Appeal, being totally devoid of merit, was dismissed with costs.

TARIQ MUHAMMAD vs FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Ss — 2024 PLC(CS) 1546 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC