Promotion

  1. A promotion can only be validly ordered on the recommendation of a Selection Board. Abdul Latif Ansari v. AJ&K Government 1992 SCR 284 (A)
  2. It is the competent authority which has to decide the suitability for promotion and not the Service Tribunal. Muhammad Azad Khan v. The Secretary AJK Council 1993 SCR 387 (D)
  3. Order of promotion-Retrospective effect- the antedation is sound because on that date promotee was fit for promotion and order in his favour had been withheld without any justification. Muhammad Azad Khan  v. The Secretary AJK Council 1993 SCR 387 (J)
  4. Selection post has to be filled up on the basis of merits alone-best has to be selected. Muhammad Azad Khan v. The Secretary AJK Council 1993 SCR 387 (I)
  5. Promotion does not go by seniority alone. Ghulam Mustafa Qureshi v. Azad Government and others 1994 SCR 227 (F)
  6. Matter of regular promotion of parties would be decided by the competent authority after considering their requisite qualifications — Present promotion is on acting charge basis — In view of temporary nature of promotion the same cannot be annulled merely because respondent was not heard — Specially so when she was not B.Ed. and was not qualified for promotion on said date. Promotion is to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Rehana Aziz v. Shakeela Ashraf and 2 others 1998 SCR 281 (B)
  7. In the service hierarchy it is not only the pay scale that matters but it is the office, the privileges, the powers and the over-all control and administration of the institution which really matters and also the position that one enjoys by becoming the head of the institution. Akbar Khatoon v.Farhat Khizar & 2 others 1999 SCR 305 (A)
  8. Civil servants — Ante -dating of — Should be ordered according to justice of the case. Abdul Latif & 2 others    v. Secretary AJ&K Council and 2 others 1999 SCR 222 (D)
  9. Post of District Agriculture Officer — Promotion for — Requisite qualification of — Held: Mere fact that appellant was in possession of degree of M.Sc. (plant pathology) and that subsequently obtained M.Sc. degree in ‘Agriculture Extension Education’ does not entitled him to be promoted when in seniority list is much junior. M. Asif Khan v. AJK Govt. 2000 SCR 373 (A)
  10. There is no denying of fact that the respondent was superseded by the relevant Selection Board in the year 1990, but the facts remains that he was not debarred to be again sent to Selection Board for promotion irrespective of fact that the submitted any review petition or not; a civil servant by his performance can render himself fit for promotion. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and 6 others v. Muhammad Hafeez Khan and 3 others 2000 SCR 630 (A)
  11. Retrospective promotion of respondent from the year 1987 was not challenged, the same has attained finality ad the argument that he could not be promoted prior to year 1990 cannot be pressed into service because retrospective promotion of respondent was not challenged within the period of limitation. M. Ilyas Khan and 5 others v. M. Hafeez Khan and 4 others 2001 SCR 179 (D)
  12. This Court repeatedly held that there is no rule for promoting a person in a higher grade in his own pay scale. Muhammad Javaid  v. Secretary Home and 5 others 2002 SCR 1 (A)
  13. Mere seniority cannot be counted for further promotion against a post requiring a particular skill — Seniority is to be reckoned as ground for promotion but in order to judge the suitability of the candidate the department is bound to keep in sight all factions collateral to job to which promotion is to be made. M. Ammer & another v. M. Shoukat and 3 others 2003 SCR 450 (B)
  14. The respondents are graduate and possess five years service as LDC not as UDC while the appellant does not possess the length of service — Respondents cannot be deprived of the right of promotion simply for the reason that they have been promoted to the higher grades where they do not possess required length of service in that grade although they did possess the required length of service in the lower grade for promotion to the present post — What is visualized by the rules is that one should possess five years service as UDC or LDC to make him eligible to be promoted as Inspector — One does not loose the acquired right for this reason only that he does not possess the length of service in the upper grade — The UDC’s and LDC’s stand at equal footing for promotion to the post of Inspector provided they possess the required academic qualification and length of service. Maqbool Hussain v. AJ&K Council & 5 others 2005 SCR 344 (A)
  15. No person can claim promotion on the basis of seniority alone — However, it is the basic right of every senior person that his merit must be considered by the Selection Committee/Selection Board along with other persons in the panel. M. Sharif  v. Minister for Forest 2005 SCR 282 (A)
  16. Promotion in the next higher rank or grade is not vested right of any individual — The promotion of any individual cannot be made basis for striking down the rules framed by Govt. or authority in exercise of powers conferred upon it under section 23 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976. Syed Saleem Hussain Kazmi v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2005 SCR 259 (C)
  17. No person can be promoted or transferred on the post carrying higher grade in his own pay and scale. Azad Government & another v. Muhammad Sadiq Khan & 14 others 2006 SCR 391 (B) 2005 SCR 242, 1995 SCR 128 and 2002 SCR 1 rel.
  18. Appellant was promoted against a clear vacancy with retrospective effect — A condition was imposed that the order of promotion shall not affect the service rights of any senior Public Officer — Challenge to — Held: The condition imposed by the respondents in the order is not only un-warranted under law but is based on mala fide of the concerned functionaries of the Government — The judgment of the High Court has to be implemented in letters and spirit and a relief granted to a party cannot be denied. Ch. Muhammad Arif v. Azad Govt. & 2 others 2008 SCR 175 (C)
  19. Promotion in a higher grade is a different matter than appointment against a post — Respondent was recommended for promotion to BPS-20 by Selection Board on 15.9.2001 — Recommendation was approved on 6.10.2001 by competent authority — Held: Notification to this effect ought to have been issued immediately with effect from the date the competent authority had given the approval. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Muhammad Nazir Choudhry 2008 SCR 162 (A)
  20. Main pretext that the post against which appointment was approved was occupied by another person and the post of Director General Anti-Corruption became available on 15.2.2002, hence notification could take effect from 15.2.2002 — Held: Contrary to the spirit of recommendations of Selection Board, approval by the Prime Minister and rights of the respondent-civil servant. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Muhammad Nazir Choudhry 2008 SCR 162 (B)  
  21. Three things are to be seen while considering a case of promotion — First rule is that: is it a part of selection or of seniority-cum-fitness or of seniority alone? Second is where the promotion is to take place by seniority-cum-fitness, the question would necessarily be assignment of the correct seniority and proceedings to determine the entitlement of promotion on its basis; third question necessarily would be of a fitness for promotion — First two questions relate to law and its application to the civil servants awaiting promotion — Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal is barred where question of fitness of a civil servant for promotion is involved — Determination of eligibility is a question on which jurisdiction of Service Tribunal has not been barred — Question of eligibility primarily relates to the terms and conditions of service and their applicability to the civil servant concerned. Dr. Abdul Ghaffar Sulehria v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 2008 SCR 230 (I)
  22. Appellant held the post of Project Manager on temporary basis and on acting charge basis — These orders are not appointments by promotion on regular basis — Held: They will, therefore, be not considered as holding the post on permanent or regular basis — Their continuous appointments would not mean their permanent appointments enabling to claim seniority against directly recruited respondents — Held: Permanent appointment by promotion to the post of Project Manger shall be considered from the date, the concerned Selection Board approved them for regular promotion — Held further: The case of appellant was considered by Selection Board on 16.11.1999 when private respondents had already been appointed directly on regular basis on 9.7.1999 — About 4 months prior to the appointment — Being senior to appellant the seniority list issued on 16.12.2002 was issued in accordance with law — Seniority of directly appointed respondents could not be destroyed by any method. M. Farid Shahzad v. Azad Govt. & 11 others 2009 SCR 143 (F)
  23. Experience — No doubt comes in merit — But seniority cannot be ignored — Held: Merely the experience as Child Specialist on officiating basis cannot be considered as a superior qualification against the seniority. Dr. Sadiq Hussain v. AJ&K Government and 6 others 2009 SCR 345 (F)
  24. For promotion not only the seniority is to be considered alone but the fitness is also considered by the competent authority — No order of the Court violated — Petition has no force which was dismissed. Muhammad Arif  v. Raja Muhammad Farooq Niaz & 3 others 2009 SCR 140 (D)
  25. For promotion to a non-selection post the rule of seniority has to be taken into consideration apart from merit and fitness. Dr. Sadiq H. v. AJ&K Government and 6 others 2009 SCR 345 (E)
  26. Retrospective promotion — Its effect on seniority — A civil servant can be promoted with retrospective effect — If he is holding officiating, current charge or any other position in higher grade for which he was otherwise qualified but was not regular promoted — It cannot take effect for the purpose of seniority vis-à-vis his counterpart civil servants from that date — Seniority in the higher grade is to take effect from the date of his regular appointment in the grade. Ch. Safdar H. v. M. Iqbal Nizami 2009 SCR 98 (A)2000 SCR 580, PLJ 2000 SC (AJK) 88, 2001SCR179 rel
  27. Rerospective promotion cannot override the seniority rights of civil servants substantively and regularly appointed or promoted earlier. Ch. Safdar H. v. M. Iqbal Nizami 2009 SCR 98 (B)
  28. Retrospective promotion shall not affect the seniority of those officers who stood regularly appointed or promoted — This is the spirit of the service rules. Ch. Safdar Hussain v. Muhammad Iqbal Nizami & 6 others 2009 SCR 98 (C)   
  29. A person cannot claim a vested right for promotion to a particular post with the claim that the rules be framed in such a manner so that he may be promoted — Held further: In the rules the Government fixed such qualification which is necessary for relevant field — No fundamental rights of appellant have been infringed. Rizwan Muzaffar v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2010 SCR 156 (D)
  30. Argument — That the departmental order impugned before the Service Tribunal is not a promotion — Mere absence of word ‘‘promotion’’ makes no difference as the body of the order is very much clear that the appellant has been posted as District Education Officer from  the post of Deputy District Education Officer. According to the codal provision the appointment as District Education Officer from the post of Deputy District Education Officer is clearly a promotion. Nazira Begum v. Shabbarat Begum & 4 others 2010 SCR 509 (A)
  31. Civil servants — Promotion — Consideration of eligible candidates — Mandatory — No law entitles a civil servant to forego promotion — It is settled principle of law that when a civil servant enters into promotion zone, otherwise qualified, must be considered for promotion by the relevant selection committee/Board. Held: The competent authority is bound to issue promotion orders on the recommendations of the Selection Board/Committee — If any civil servant who on being promoted to the higher grade, refuses to join duty at a new place, he shall be proceeded under law for disobeying the orders of competent authority — Further held: There is no law which entitles a civil servant to forego the promotion for one or the other reason. Raheela Khalid v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2011 SCR 586 (A)
  32. When a civil servant enters in to promotion zone, the competent authority is not empowered to ask the civil servant whether he/she wants to be promoted or not. Held: When a civil servant deserves promotion he/she must be promoted by following the due process of law. Raheela Khalid v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2011 SCR 586 (B)
  33. Civil servant — Promotion — Seniority — Non consideration for promotion — Effect of — It a civil servant, who is senior, is considered and not promoted for some reason and junior to him/her is promoted  and at a later stage when senior one is promoted, he shall remain junior, to the incumbents who have been promoted earlier — The appellant has not been considered for promotion at the relevant time by the Selection Board, hence is entitled to be promoted keeping in view the seniority as senior teacheress from the date when she pass her B.Ed. examination. Raheela Khalid v. Azad Govt. & 8 others 2011 SCR 586 (C)
  34. Officiating promotion does not create any right. Yasir Maqbool, Junior P.E.T., Government Boys High School, Musa Khairian, Muzaffarabad v. Shahid Hameed, P.E.T., Government Boys High School Musa Khairian, Muzaffarabad and 5 others 2013 SCR 1015 (A)
  35. The matters of determination of fitness for promotion of a civil servant to a higher post is the job of the Authority.  Held: no Tribunal or Court can substitute its own view for the view of the competent authority. Syed Rashed Hussain Shah v. Azad Govt. & 6 others 2014 SCR 883 (C)
  36. Anti-dated—anti-dated promotion will not affect the seniority of the incumbents of the post in the grade. Mrs. Shaheen Ashai v. M. Anwar Ch. 2014 SCR 1169 (A)1994 SCR 297 and A.Majeed Banday vs. Azad Govt.& others (civil appeal No. 66 of 2004 date of decision on 12.7.2005), rel.
  37. —Held: that the promotion is basically not to a higher grade but to a higher post. Prof. Malik Arshad  Aziz & others v. Finance Department & others 2017 SCR 559 (F) 1991 PLC (C.S) 426 rel.
  38. —other mode of promotion—officiating promotion, proforma promotion etc., for the welfare and financial benefits—Held: that the promotion is not only a regular promotion rather there are also some other mode of promotions which cannot come within the definition of regular promotion, however, that can be made only for the welfare of the employees including the financial benefits. Prof. Malik Arshad  Aziz & others v. Finance Department & others 2017 SCR 559 (I)
  39. —Police service—The names of the eligible police officers are included in “F” list for judging their suitability for further promotion—all eligible officers are liable to be considered at the relevant time of promotion. Muhammad Mehrban & others v. Rashid Habib & others 2017 SCR 1601 (B)
  40. —Police  Rules—promotion—respondent neither included in List “F”, nor superseded—Service Tribunal gave direction for placing his name at proper  place in seniority list—His seniority will not be affected—Service Tribunal has not cancelled promotion of anybody—the direction of Service Tribunal just and equitable, in circumstances.  Muhammad Mehrban & others v. Rashid Habib & others 2017 SCR 1601 (C)
  41. —Right of —if denied—remedy of appeal provided before departmental authority—if a civil servant who has been denied the right of promotion or has adversely affected by the order of the competent authority then he has been provided remedy of appeal before the departmental authority. Fazal Hussain vs Chief Conservator Forest &  others 2018 SCR 390 (A)
  42. —Claim for promotion from the date when the post in question had fallen vacant—Held: it is not an automatic process that when a post will become vacant then immediately on the same date the person eligible for promotion shall be promoted, rather in this regard a specific procedure is required under law. Azad Govt. & others v. Juma Khan & another 2019 SCR 101 (A)
  43. —Minimum qualification for—The law is well settled that only a person who is in possession of the minimum qualification fixed for promotion can be considered for the same. Director General Health & others v. Saeed Ahmed 2019 SCR 284 (A)
  44. —Selection Board—No findings for ignoring the civil servant for promotion— the selection board has found that civil servant is in possession of the relevant qualification, experience and is ahead to the private respondents in the seniority list, but despite of the fact the civil servant has been ignored for erroneous reasons—Held: it is correct that promotion cannot be claimed as of right and similarly if the fitness of a civil servant for holding a particular post by promotion is determined by the selection board on the basis of some tangible evidence/record, the same cannot be substituted, but in the present case, the approach of Service Tribunal appears to be arbitrary, illegal and the civil servant has been ignored for unlawful reasons. Muhammad Latif v. Deputy Commissioner & others 2019 SCR 324 (A) 1994 PLC (C.S) 887, 2018 SCR 164 ref
  45. —Promotion made on the recommendations of Selectin Board— the Court cannot sit as an appellate forum to examine the opinion duly arrived at by the Selection Board, which consists of the experts in the matter of selection, unless the same is found perverse, capricious, arbitrary, against law or any serious violation of statutory rules holding the field is pointed out. Shahzaada Mughal v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 572 (B)
error: Content is protected !!