SC rules on seniority principle

Apex court says promotion always governed by rules and regulations

ISLAMABAD:

The Supreme Court has observed that a particular claim of promotion or seniority was not a fundamental right.

Authored by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, a verdict issued by the apex court said the law was somewhat and moderately well-settled in a series of dictums of superior courts, highlighting the conspectus that a particular claim of promotion or seniority was not a fundamental right and a person was disentitled to claim seniority from a date he was not borne or take on in the service.

Justice Mazhar observed this while hearing a case pertaining to the service of a petitioner whose appeal claiming antedated seniority was dismissed by the federal service tribunal.

A division bench of the apex court led by Justice Sardar Tariq Masood heard the matter.

The judgment explained that in the philosophy or jurisprudence of service laws, no one has a vested right to a particular promotion or particular seniority, but it was always governed and regulated in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations with a venue of consideration for progression, including the fixation of seniority in line with the criteria provided under the applicable rules.

It added that such consideration can only be invited if all requisite conditions or preconditions are fulfilled by such claimant enabling him to join the queue or stand in line.

The court said that in order to streamline the proper administration of service, cadre or post, the appointing authority is required to make out a seniority list of the members, but no vested right is conferred to particular seniority in such service, cadre or post.

"No antedated seniority can be claimed as a vested right.”

Also read: Justice Isa backs seniority to appoint SC judges

“Though it was an admitted fact that the petitioner joined training with the batch of 43rd CTP but he is aspiring and ambitious for the fixation of his seniority with the batch of 35th CTP (common training programme) without passing out in that training course which besides being unpersuasive and irrational, also quite unfamiliar and alien to the applicable rules governing and regulating the principles envisaged for fixation of seniority to any particular post or cadre.”

The verdict noted that at this juncture reference of office memorandum dated September 29, 2015, issued by the Establishment Division for determination of inter-se seniority of officers of all occupational groups and services was quite significant

"According to the factual matrix, the petitioner joined 43rd CTP in the year 2015 hence his prospective leeway or possibility of promotion would be matured after five years for BS-18. Had the appeal of the petitioner been allowed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal, it would deem to have been allowed antedated seniority in BS-17 with 35th CTP contenders in the year 2007 which would be tantamount to nurturing qualifying service for promotion for BS-18 & BS-19 without passing out 35th CTP."

The petitioner had entreated for directions against the respondents to grant antedated seniority with effect from 2007 with all consequential benefits which request or expectation was beyond the rules and norms, the judgement read.

It said that it would also be inequitable and unreasonable to the other members of service and obviously overturns and obliterates their seniority, who were neither arrayed before the service tribunal nor was any opportunity afforded to them to respond and defend their seniority.

Therefore, the bench concluded that the court does not find any irregularity and perversity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the civil.