| Case ID |
168869f2-f9bb-4c73-b63f-5e4237e4bf8f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Nil and Miscellaneous No.9275 of 2000 |
| Decision Date |
Mar 22, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 26, 2001 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court ruled that the plaint filed by the plaintiff was barred by express provisions of law. The court emphasized that matters related to the fitness of civil servants for promotion are under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and not the Civil Court. The court found that the plaintiff's grievances regarding promotion and fitness could only be resolved by the proper departmental authorities, and the Civil Court cannot interfere in such matters. The plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, indicating that the case was not maintainable in civil proceedings. The court upheld that the power to determine fitness lies with the competent authority and must be exercised judiciously without arbitrariness. The interim injunction sought by the plaintiff was also denied, reinforcing the principle that promotion is not an inherent right but subject to the regulations of the governing laws. |
| Summary |
In the case of HABIB-UR-REHMAN vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, the Sindh High Court addressed critical issues surrounding civil service promotions and the jurisdiction of the courts versus service tribunals. The plaintiff, a civil servant, contested his non-promotion and the evaluation of his fitness by the Provincial Selection Board-II. The court clarified that under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, matters regarding the fitness of civil servants for promotion are strictly within the domain of the Service Tribunal and cannot be adjudicated in civil court. The ruling highlighted that the plaintiff's claims were not maintainable in civil proceedings due to the express legal provisions barring such suits. The decision reinforced the principle that civil servants do not have an inherent right to promotion, as these decisions are governed by departmental policies and regulations. The court's rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, signifies the importance of adhering to established legal frameworks in administrative matters. This case underscores the necessity for civil servants to engage with the appropriate channels for grievances related to their professional evaluations and promotions, emphasizing the delineation of jurisdiction between civil courts and specialized service tribunals. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ZIA PERWEZ, J
|
| Lawyers |
M.M. Aqil Awan for Plaintiff,
Raja Qureshi, A.-G. Sindh for Defendants Nos. 1 to 3,
Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Defendants Nos. 4 to 6
|
| Petitioners |
HABIB-UR-REHMAN
|
| Respondents |
5 others,
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT
|
| Citations |
2001 SLD 1975,
2001 PLC 949
|
| Other Citations |
Burmah Eastern Limited v. Burmah Eastern Employees' Union and others PLD 1967 Dacca 190,
1983 PLC (C.S.) 652,
NLR 1978 (Service) 249,
1993 PLC (C.S.) 937,
1994 SCMR 759,
1995 SCMR 650,
1998 PLC (C.S.) 1175,
Muttaqi Hussain Rizvi v. Province of Sindh PLD 1978 Kar. 703,
Zafar Iqbal v. M.G.O., M.G.O. Branch, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi and 3 others 1995 SCMR 881,
Muhammad Afzal and others v. Province of the Punjab and others 1977 PLC (C.S.T.) 195,
Muhammad Azad Khan and others v. The Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council and others 1999 PLC (C.S.) 122,
Iqan Ahmed Khurram v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1980 SC 153,
Muhammad Hashim Khan and others v. Province of Balochistan and others PLD 1976 Quetta 59,
Fazal Elahi Ejaz and others v. Government of the Punjab and others PLD 1977 Lah. 549,
Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1981 Kar. 290
|
| Laws Involved |
Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
|
| Sections |
4,
O. VII, R.11,
O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2,
Art.212,
56(d)
|