Naib-tehsildar, appointment

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS) 1292 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE) BAHAWALPUR
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE
Para. 242---Naib-tehsildar, appointment of---Respondent who was serving as Kanungo was not considered for promotion as Naib-tehsildar as the Departmental Promotion Committee had already reserved name of one of his senior colleagues for promotion as Naib-tehsildar---Legality---Seat of Naib-tehsildar had been illegally reserved by the Departmental Promotion Committee for a senior colleague of respondent, which clearly showed mala fide and favouritism on the part of the competent authority---Service Tribunal had rightly observed that the only reason for which the respondent could not be considered for promotion was that one of the five available posts of Naib-tehsildar had been reserved for his senior colleague; that said colleague was not recommended for promotion on account of pendency of an inquiry against him and so it was the respondent who could have been considered for promotion being the next in seniority ---Besides senior colleague of respondent was working against an ex-cadre post out of district, as such was not working in his parent department, therefore, he being posted out of the district was ineligible for promotion---Service Tribunal had rightly given directions to consider respondent for antedated promotion of Naib-tehsildar with effect from the date when the vacancy of Naib-tehsildar had been reserved for his senior-colleague---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS) 725 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER GUJRANWALA
Side Opponent : EJAZ AHMAD
seniority ---Ante-dated seniority to a civil servant---Violation of the law.

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS) 679 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Dr. EHSAN-UL-HAQ KHAN
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
S. 8(4)---Civil Servants (seniority ) Rules, 1993, R. 3, Proviso (3)---seniority ---Scope---Indolence and delay in challenging seniority list---Respondents and appellant, were selected by Federal Public Service Commission as Veterinary Officers (BS-17) in the year 1990, and were so appointed the same year---Federal Public Service Commission as per merit placed respondents senior to appellant, however, in the seniority list, issued by the department subsequently, the order of seniority was altered and respondents were placed junior to appellant---On the basis of the said seniority list, appellant was promoted to BS-18 in the year 1996---Admittedly, the seniority list, whereby the seniority assigned by Federal Public Service Commission to respondents was altered by ranking appellant senior to respondents, was upon circulation, duly signed by respondents without any protest---Respondents challenged seniority list and promotion of appellant to BS-18 before the Service Tribunal, three years after the appellant had been promoted---Tribunal through its judgment though gave directions to rectify the seniority list but declined to pass any order regarding the promotion of appellant to BS-18---Respondents felt content with the said order and did not pursue their further relief regarding the promotion of appellant to BS-18---During the pendency of respondents' appeal before the Tribunal, two direct inductees were appointed in BS-18, however, neither were they impleaded in the appeal nor was any relief sought against them by respondents---In the examination held for the post to which direct inductees had been appointed, the respondents also participated but failed---Respondents never challenged the appointment of the direct inductees and it was at least about seven years after the said appointment, that respondents sought seniority over direct inductees, also, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, they were not entitled to as direct inductees were appointed in BS-18 about seven years prior to the promotion of respondents in the said cadre, and had in fact failed in their attempt for their appointment along with the direct inductees---In terms of proviso (3) of R. 3 of the Civil Servants (seniority ) Rules, 1993, respondents, being senior to appellant, were, upon promotion to BS-18, entitled to their original seniority but having remained indolent in the matter and not having challenged the change in the seniority list for more than three years, and further having remained satisfied with the judgment of the Service Tribunal and by not challenging the same, had contributed to the creation of an anomalous situation---Furthermore, the Tribunal's judgment, whereby it declined relief of promotion to respondents from the date the appellant was promoted to BS-18, operated as res-judicata in respect of the said issue---Supreme Court directed that the seniority of the respondents, appellant and direct inductees should be assigned in the order of their promotions/appointments in BPS-18---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS) 738 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : SAEED MUHAMMAD ZAI
Side Opponent : The SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Promotion---Fitness---Though fitness was an important element in consideration of promotion but it would precede with seniority .