NASEEM KHAN vs The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar S

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

NASEEM KHAN VS The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar S. 9---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, R. 3(2)---Promotion quota, amendment of---Discretion of employer/appointing authority---Non-interference by Courts---Scope---Petitioners were appointed as Soil Conservation Assistants (BPS-17)---Through the impugned notification, the 100% promotion quota reserved for the petitioners was reduced to 75% and the remaining 25% quota was allocated to the cadre of "Field Assistants" which allegedly affected seniority and promotion of the petitioners---Petitioners filed a Departmental Appeal but no response was received, hence they filed appeals before the Tribunal which were dismissed by means of the impugned judgment---Validity---Policy decision made up by dint of the impugned notification of reducing 25% promotion quota and allocating it for the progression of Field Assistants according to the exigency, was not ultra vires to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973 or the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, but seemingly, with the aim of harmonizing the promotion criteria and path of progression, the department allocated a quota for accommodating the Field Assistants---Impugned notification did not infringe or contravene the fundamental rights nor was it against the public interest or the law---Neither the impugned notification was ex facie discriminatory nor was it capable of being administered in any discriminatory manner---It was also not unjust or oppressive---On the contrary, the competent authority was empowered to establish the yardsticks for determination of eligibility and fitness which was sine qua non for promotion, and devising and structuring the recruitment policy fell within its exclusive line of work and adeptness and in case of exigency and expediency, it may enact and amend the relevant rules---There was no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal which may warrant any interference---Petitions were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 979 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case NASEEM KHAN VS The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar appointment and promotion---Criteria and qualifications, setting of---Discretion and decision of the employer/appointing authority---Non-interference by Courts---Scope---Required qualifications for appointment to any post is the sole discretion and decision of the employer and it is in its realm to prescribe criteria and the preference for appointment of a candidate who is best suited to its requirements in which the court has no sphere of influence to arbitrate or set down the course of action or put forward the conditions of eligibility or fitness for appointment or promotion until and unless the relevant laws and rules prescribing the well-defined and straightforward benchmark of appointment or promotion seems to have been violated. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 979 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case NASEEM KHAN VS The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar Scope---No doubt, it is within the dominion of the Court to exercise its power of judicial review to evaluate and weigh upon the legislative and executive actions in order to maintain and sustain the rule of law, to check and balance and render null and void an unlawful action or decision, and with the same spirit and frame of mind, the Court may also invalidate and strike down laws, acts, and governmental actions if found unlawful and beyond the scope of power and jurisdiction---Judicial review can be sought if the decision maker was misdirected in terms of the law, exercised a power wrongly, or improperly purported to exercise a power that it did not have, which is known as acting ultra vires. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 979 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case NASEEM KHAN VS The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar Promotion---Scope---Though consideration for promotion is a right, yet promotion itself cannot be claimed as of right---There is no vested right in promotion or rules determining the eligibility for promotion.

NASEEM KHAN vs The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar S — 2024 PLC(CS) 979 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC