Seeking direction for nomination for Senior Management Course

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS) 398 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Dr. AMIR BUX
Side Opponent : The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 3 & 6---Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S.2(1)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25---Employee of Sui Southern Gas Company Limited---Termination from service---Non-statutory Rules---Effect---Terms and conditions of service---Sacked employees reinstated in service in the lower grade---seniority and promotion---Determination of---Scope---Contention of employees was that they had been demoted to the low grade on reinstatement---Validity---Petitioners were not civil servants but employees of a non-statutory company having no statutory Rules of service---Petitioners could not invoke the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal and only remedy if any was by way of civil suit before civil court---Employees were terminated from service but upon promulgation of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 they were reinstated in service to complete their remaining period of contract---Conditions for reinstatement was that said contract would remain valid up to 30-04-2009 and thereafter it should automatically stand withdrawn---Reinstatement letters did not show the pay and scale---Employees accepted the terms of reinstatement letters issued in compliance of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009---Compliance of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 had been made and no grievance could be agitated after compliance of terms and conditions of service of employer company---No further claim could be made that provisions of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 had been violated---Grade, pay scale, promotion, demotion and seniority fell within the expression of terms and conditions of service which was an internal matter of service of company---Said matter could not be raised in constitutional petition---Petitioners were appointed on contract basis and no grade was assigned in their terms of contract---Employer company had to decide against which grade and pay scale it had to place the employees---Petitioners could not made any claim on the basis of Art.25 of the Constitution in that respect---Employees could not claim any fundamental/vested right in promotion and determination of eligibility as same was an administrative matter falling within the exclusive domain and policy decision making of the employer---Employer company/competent authority was entitled to make Rules in the exigency of service and to remove anomalies in service Rules---Relationship of master and servant existed between the employees and employer company---Grievance of employees pertained to the terms and conditions of service which could not be enforced through constitutional petition---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS) 89 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHAN SOOMRO
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH
Petitioner seeking nomination for attending Mid Career Management Course---Scope---Mid Career Management Course was mandatory for the purpose of promotion to the higher rank---No junior officer had been nominated for attending Mid Career Management Course---Case of petitioner did not fall within the ambit of promotion zone as well as seniority ---Petitioner being a junior officer could not claim nomination for Mid Career Management Course as a matter of right; he might be considered for nomination on his turn if found eligible---No illegality or irregularity was pointed out in the impugned notification---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS) 7 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MURAD ALI JATOI
Side Opponent : SINDH INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE (S.I.T.E.)
Out of turn promotion in violation of judgment of Supreme Court---Employees, while holding the degree of Civil Engineering, chose to apply as Sub-Engineer, therefore, should have been dealt with the cadre of Grade-14 and treated with their contemporaries---Defendants-employees who were promoted out of turn were demoted from grade-17 to grade-14---Employees within three days of their re-erection to grade-17 were promoted to grade-18---Plaintiff-employee being B-Tech (Hons.) was inducted in service in 1993 in grade-14 whereas defendants-employees inducted in the same department in grade-14 in 2005 had reached to grade-18 in the years 2016 but plaintiff-employee had only been promoted from grade-14 to grade-17 after lapse of 16 years of service---Employees' seniority and promotion had to be driven by their own cadre in which they had chosen to be inducted---Defendants-employees while holding a Bachelor of Engineering degree could not be given benefit of said degree until and unless they applied and get selected for the post on the strength of their Bachelor of Engineering degrees---Defendants-employees while holding a Bachelor of Engineering degree not only usurped two seats of Diploma holders but had also encroached upon the rights of Civil Engineers who had joined the establishment after 2005---Case of defendants-employees was stockpiled with layers of illegality and dishonesty---Defendants-employees while joining in grade-14 were not competent as they did not possess the necessary qualification---Defendants-employees without following the rules were promoted to grade-17 and they were demoted to grade-14 in compliance of judgment of the Supreme Court but they got their demotion orders reversed by a house committee---Said committee was not able to obstruct the letter and spirit of judgment of the Supreme Court-- Impugned notification which was pretended to be issued in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court had actually done the inverse---Said notification had no merit and was declared unlawful in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS)N 179 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Mrs. SADIA ALI AKRAM
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
seniority list---Right to attend promotion course---Scope---Grievance of petitioner was that she was listed at Sr. No.1 of seniority list but her name was not recommended to attend Mid-Career Management Course---Validity---Petitioner was senior in seniority list and she was within ambit of promotion zone for higher rank (BS-19)---Nominations of juniors were made irrespective of seniority list and there was no reason as to why petitioner who was at Sr. No. 1 was not considered for Mid-Career Management Course nomination---High Court directed the authorities to include name of petitioner in list of candidates mentioned in Office Memorandum in question for attending Mid-Career Management Course at National Institute of Management---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS)N 123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Ms. REHANA PARVEEN
Side Opponent : The FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
S. 11(10)---Bank employee---Promotion---Criteria---Eligibility and fitness---Scope---Contention of employees was that they had been discriminated and officers junior to them had been promoted---Validity---Employer Bank was entitled to make Rules in the interest of exigency of service and to remove anomalies in the service rules---Service Rules Committee had to determine the eligibility criteria of promotion which was an administrative matter falling within the exclusive domain and policy making of the Bank---Interference in such matters by the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction was not warranted---No vested right of Bank employee was involved in the matter of promotion or the Rules determining their eligibility or fitness---High Court had no jurisdiction to strike down the policy of the employer-Bank---Policy framed by the Bank for promotion of regular employees was based on criteria viz. seniority , service in grade, professional qualification, performance relating of last three years and educational qualification---Petitioners-employees had to meet all the conditions to claim consideration for promotion---Employer -bank had to decide whether employees had met the criteria set forth for promotion or not---Employees had failed to point out any malice on the part of the Bank to warrant interference in the promotion matter under constitutional jurisdiction---Nothing was on record that policy framed by the Bank had infringed Fundamental Rights of the employees---Competent authority had jurisdiction to enhance qualification of certain posts---No vested/Fundamental Right could be claimed in seniority /promotion case as promotion would depend upon various factors which required consideration for promotion of the employees---Criteria for promotion was eligibility and fitness which could not be claimed as a matter of right---Eligibility would relate to terms and conditions of service and fitness was a subjective evaluation made on the basis of objective criteria---Competent authority had to make appointment, determine seniority , eligibility, fitness and promotion and other ancillary matters with regard to terms and conditions of employees as prescribed under the Rules---Selection, promotion and transfer of employees of Bank except that of President and decision as to their remuneration and benefits had to be made by the President of the Bank in accordance with the criteria and policies determined by the Board of Directors---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS)N 115 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : IMTIAZ AHMED BHATTI
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division
Promotion---Seeking direction for nomination for Senior Management Course---Scope---Department had approved the nomination of only three officers out of eleven placed at serial Nos.12, 21 and 27 of provisional seniority list whereas petitioner's name was at serial No.44---Case of petitioner employee did not fall within the ambit of promotion zone---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.