Maxim: Audi alteram partem

Citation Name : 2019 SCMR 993 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Dr. YASMEEN JAFFAR
Side Opponent : Dr. SHEHLA SAMI
Inter-se seniority ---Maxim: Audi alteram partem---Scope---Pro-forma promotion granted without hearing parties affected by the same---Respondent was appointed as Assistant Professor (BS-18) w.e.f. 08-08-2008 on the recommendations of Public Service Commission against the quota reserved for initial recruitment---Petitioner on the other hand was appointed as Assistant Professor (BS-18) when she became eligible, against the vacant post on 17-12-2009 on the recommendation of the Provincial Selection Board by way of promotion---Final seniority list of the relevant department was issued on 10-09-2012 wherein respondent appeared at serial No.4 while petitioner was at serial No.6---Such seniority list was not questioned by any one---Dispute appeared to have arisen from a Service Appeal filed by the petitioner to establish her seniority vis-à-vis another Assistant Professor, however the Service Tribunal did not settle that controversy and remanded the case to the department with a direction to decide the case on merit---Significantly neither the respondent nor three other Professors who would have been directly affected by any change in the seniority list were arrayed as respondents in appeal before Service Tribunal nor were they called, impleaded or heard by the department---Said persons were condemned unheard and the maxim: audi alteram partem was violated at both levels---Department processed the case of the petitioner in isolation without hearing other parties interested in the matter and ultimately notification was issued whereby the petitioner was unilaterally granted proforma promotion with retrospective effect from i.e. 22-01-2008 which was apparently the date on which the Post of Assistant Professor against the promotion quota became available---Department also clearly overlooked the fact that on the said date the petitioner was not eligible for promotion against the said seat on account of shortfall in her relevant experience---Service Tribunal had rightly set aside the notification which granted pro forma promotion to the petitioner---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Related Articles

Appointment of employees appointed on current charge…

Appointment of employees appointed on current charge basis was to come to an end on the appointment…

Superintendent in the subordinate judiciary

Superintendent in the subordinate judiciary

-Civil servant transferred to another department after…

-Civil servant transferred to another department after making a request for mutual transfer with another…

Maxim: Audi alteram partem

Maxim: Audi alteram partem

Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer)…

Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973

Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for…

Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 2018

Neither any seniority nor any promotion could be claimed…

Neither any seniority nor any promotion could be claimed or granted without actual length of service…

Whether ad hoc employee, who was switched to contract…

Whether ad hoc employee, who was switched to contract employee and then finally regularized in service…

2019 PLC(CS) 333

2019 PLC(CS) 333

2019 PLC(CS) 83

2019 PLC(CS) 83

Defence Saving Certificates Rules, 1966

Defence Saving Certificates Rules, 1966

PLD 2019 SC 719

PLD 2019 SC 719

Contact Us