Promotion is not a right but a legitimate demand.
عدالت نے کہا کہ ترقیاتی پالیسیاں اور قواعد میں تبدیلیاں حکومت کی صوابدید میں ہیں اور عدالت ان تبدیلیوں میں مداخلت نہیں کر سکتی جب تک کہ یہ واضح طور پر قانونی حدود یا بنیادی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی نہ ہوں۔
اس مقدمے میں سپریم کورٹ نے واضح کیا کہ کیپی کے سروس ٹریبونل کے فیصلے میں کوئی غیر قانونی یا بے قاعدگی نہیں پائی گئی جو اس عدالت کی مداخلت کی متقاضی ہو۔ اس فیصلے کے چند خاص نکات درج ذیل ہیں:
1. **پالیسی فیصلے کی قانونی حیثیت
**: سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ 18.09.2019 کی نوٹیفکیشن، جو 100% ترقیاتی کوٹے کو کم کرکے 75% کر کے باقی 25% کو "فیلڈ اسسٹنٹس" کے لیے مختص کرتی ہے، کسی بھی قانونی ضابطے کی خلاف ورزی نہیں کرتی۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ یہ فیصلہ محض محکمہ کی ترقیاتی پالیسی کا حصہ ہے اور اس میں کوئی قانونی خرابی نہیں ہے۔
2. **مراعات کا حق
**: عدالت نے وضاحت کی کہ ترقی ایک حق نہیں ہے بلکہ ایک جائز مطالبہ ہے۔ کسی بھی ملازم کو ترقی کا حق نہیں دیا جا سکتا بلکہ ترقی کے معیار اور قواعد کی بنیاد پر اس پر غور کیا جاتا ہے۔
3. **مقدمے کی جانچ
**: عدالت نے کہا کہ تبدیلیاں اور قواعد کی وضاحت محکمہ کی صوابدید پر ہیں، اور جب تک یہ تبدیلیاں قانون یا بنیادی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی نہیں کرتی، عدالت انہیں تبدیل کرنے کی مجاز نہیں ہے۔
4. **قانون کی تشریح
**: عدالت نے اس بات کو بھی تسلیم کیا کہ سروس رولز میں تبدیلیاں کرنا اور ترقی کے معیار کو ترتیب دینا حکومت کا اختیار ہے، اور عدالت ان معاملات میں مداخلت نہیں کر سکتی جب تک کہ کوئی واضح قانونی خلاف ورزی نہ ہو۔
مجموعی طور پر، سپریم کورٹ نے مقدمات کو خارج کر دیا اور اس معاملے میں کوئی مزید مداخلت کرنے کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔
اس مقدمے میں سپریم کورٹ نے ایک منفرد اور اہم نکتہ واضح کیا ہے: **سروس رولز اور ترقی کے معیار میں تبدیلیاں حکومت کی صوابدید پر ہیں** اور عدالت ان تبدیلیوں میں مداخلت نہیں کر سکتی جب تک کہ یہ واضح طور پر قانون کی خلاف ورزی نہ کریں یا بنیادی حقوق پر اثر انداز نہ ہوں۔
اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ اگر حکومت کسی ملازم کی ترقی یا سروس کے قواعد میں تبدیلی کرتی ہے، تو عدالت اس تبدیلی کو صرف اس صورت میں چیلنج کر سکتی ہے جب یہ تبدیلی واضح طور پر قانونی حدود یا حقوق کی خلاف ورزی کرے۔ بصورت دیگر، ترقیاتی پالیسیاں اور قواعد میں تبدیلیاں قانونی طور پر درست سمجھی جائیں گی۔
**درخواست:**
یہ درخواستیں سپریم کورٹ میں اس بنیاد پر دائر کی گئی تھیں کہ 18 ستمبر 2019 کے نوٹیفکیشن کے ذریعے سرکاری ملازمین کی ترقی کی کوٹہ پالیسی میں تبدیلیاں کی گئی تھیں۔ درخواست گزاروں کا کہنا تھا کہ ترقی کے لیے مختص 100 فیصد کوٹہ کم کر کے 75 فیصد کر دیا گیا اور باقی 25 فیصد کوٹہ "فیلڈ اسسٹنٹس" کے لیے مختص کر دیا گیا، جس سے ان کی ترقی اور سنیارٹی پر منفی اثرات مرتب ہوئے۔ درخواست گزاروں نے اس نوٹیفکیشن کو قانون کی خلاف ورزی قرار دیا اور کہا کہ یہ ان کے بنیادی حقوق اور ترقی کے قوانین کی خلاف ورزی ہے۔
**جواب:**
عدالت نے دلائل سنے اور درخواست گزاروں کی طرف سے پیش کردہ دلائل کا جائزہ لیا۔ درخواست گزاروں کے وکیل نے بنیادی طور پر یہ موقف اپنایا کہ یہ نوٹیفکیشن غیر قانونی ہے اور ترقیاتی کوٹہ میں تبدیلیاں سنیارٹی اور ترقی کے اصولوں کے خلاف ہیں۔
**فیصلہ:**
سپریم کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیا کہ نوٹیفکیشن میں کی گئی تبدیلیاں قانونی دائرے میں ہیں اور ان کا جائزہ لینے کے بعد کوئی خلاف ورزی نہیں پائی گئی۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ ترقیاتی پالیسیاں اور قواعد میں تبدیلیاں حکومت کی صوابدید میں ہیں اور عدالت ان تبدیلیوں میں مداخلت نہیں کر سکتی جب تک کہ یہ واضح طور پر قانونی حدود یا بنیادی حقوق کی خلاف ورزی نہ ہوں۔ اس بنیاد پر تمام درخواستیں مسترد کر دی گئیں اور اپیلوں کی اجازت نہ دی گئی۔
Must read Judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
Present:
Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik
Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Civil Petitions No.2074 to 2082/2023
(Against the judgment dated 20.1.2023 passed by
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in
Service Appeal Nos.534, 535, 538, 539, 540, 541, 542,
543 & 544/2020)
Naseem Khan (in CP 2074/2023)
Noor Muhammad (in CP 2075/2023)
Sajjad Hussain (in CP 2076/2023)
Umar Rehman (in CP 2077/2023)
Bilal Ahmad (in CP 2078/2023)
Aqib Nouman (in CP 2079/2023)
Naveed Hashim (in CP 2080/2023)
Miss Ayesha Riaz (in CP 2081/2023)
Muhammad Amir Alam (in CP 2082/2023)
…Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through
Chief Secretary Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar,
and others (in all cases)
…Respondent(s)
For the Petitioners:
Mr. Noor Muhammad Khattak, ASC
Mr. Anis Muhammad Shahzad, AOR
For the Respondent(s):
N.R
Date of Hearing:
17.04.2024
Judgment
Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J.- These Civil Petitions are directed against the
judgment of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar
(“Tribunal”) dated 20.01.2023, whereby all the service appeals were
dismissed by the learned Tribunal.
2. According to the sequence of events divulged by the petitioners, they
were
appointed as Soil Conservation Assistants (BPS-17)
on
CP 2074 OF 2023 ETC.
2
recommendations of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service
Commission, Peshawar. On 18.04.2018, the department issued a
Notification for setting forth an equitable service structure to categorize
25 different cadres for maintaining seniority and promotion. However,
vide impugned Notification dated 18.09.2019, the 100% promotion quota
reserved for the petitioners was reduced to 75% and the remaining 25%
quota was allocated to the cadre of “Field Assistants” which allegedly
affected seniority and promotion of the petitioners. They filed a
Departmental Appeal but no response was received, hence they filed
Appeals before the Tribunal which were dismissed by means of the
impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned
notification is against the law and it would seriously affect the seniority
and promotion of the petitioners and the other cadres to BPS-18. It was
further contended that the Field Assistant (BS-9), with a diploma course
of three years after matriculation, will be promoted to BPS-18 and will be
managing the DDO office without any specialized degree. He further
argued that the impugned Notification is also violative of Section 9 of the
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servant Act, 1973 (“Act”) and Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer)
Rules, 1989 (“Rules”).
4. Heard the arguments. We repeatedly asked the learned counsel to
show how the policy decision was ultra vires to the provisions of the Act
or the Rules, but the learned counsel only referred to Section 9 of the Act
which pertained to the promotion of a civil servant who possessed the
minimum qualification for promotion, as may be prescribed. The record
reflects that on 18.04.2018, the Livestock and Cooperation Department of
the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa issued a Notification
No.SOE(AD)II(2)429/2015-16/SC pursuant to the provisions contained in
sub-rule (2) of rule 3 of the Rules and in supersession of all previous
notifications, the Agriculture, Livestock and Co-operation Department in
consultation with the Establishment Department and the Finance
Department laid down the method of recruitment qualification and
conditions and also enumerated 25 nomenclatures of different posts.
However, vide another Notification SOE(AD)II(2)429/2019/SC, dated
CP 2074 OF 2023 ETC.
3
18.09.2019, the Government of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agriculture,
Livestock and Cooperation Department, in exercise of powers conferred
under sub-rule 2 of Rule 3 of the Rules, made certain amendments in the
earlier Notification dated 18.04.2018 and quantified a proportional quota
for the promotion to the post of Deputy Director Soil Conservation,
Deputy Directors (Planning), Deputy Director (Monitoring), Deputy
Directors Soil Survey, and District Officers Soil Conservations, that is to
say, 75% by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, from
amongst the Soil Conservation Assistants, Soil Conservation Assistants
(Technical), Soil Conservation Officers, Assistant Soil Survey Research
Officers having at least Second Class Master's Degree in Agriculture (Soil
Sciences), or at least Second Class Bachelor's Degree (Hons) in
Agriculture (Soil Sciences) from a recognized University with five years'
service as such, and 25% by promotion, on the seniority-cum-fitness
basis or from amongst the Soil Conservation Assistants, having at least
Second Class Bachelor's Degree from a recognized University with 25
years’ total service as a Field Assistant and above. A note was also
appended in the amended notification that for the purpose of promotion,
a joint seniority list of the Soil Conservation Assistant, Soil Conservation
Assistants (Technical), Soil Conservation Officers, Soil Survey Research
Officers and Assistant Soil Survey Research Officers shall be maintained.
5. According to Rule 3 of the Rules, the method of appointment to the
posts are provided intrinsically (a) by promotion or transfer in accordance
with the provisions contained in Part-II of these rules; and (b) by initial
recruitment in accordance with the provisions contained in Part-III of
these rules. Whereas sub-rule (2) articulates that the method of
appointment, qualifications, and other conditions applicable to a post
shall be such as laid down by the Department concerned in consultation
with the Establishment and Administration Department and the Finance
Department. The required qualifications for appointment to any post is
the sole discretion and decision of the employer and it is in its realm to
prescribe criteria and the preference for appointment of a candidate who
is best suited to its requirements in which the court has no sphere of
influence to arbitrate or set down the course of action or put forward the
conditions of eligibility or fitness for appointment or promotion until and
unless the relevant laws and rules prescribing the well-defined and
CP 2074 OF 2023 ETC.
4
straightforward benchmark of appointment or promotion seems to have
been violated, but in the absence of any such defilement, the relevant
rules framed for the appointment, transfer and promotion in the civil
service, by the Federal Government and Provincial Governments
separately under their Civil Servants Acts and Appointment, Promotion
and Transfer Rules will undoubtedly prevail and put into action across
the board in their respective civil servant service structures.
6. No doubt, it is within the dominion of the Court to exercise its power
of judicial review to evaluate and weigh upon the legislative and
executive actions in order to maintain and sustain the rule of law,
check and balance and render null and void an unlawful action or
decision, and with the same spirit and frame of mind, the Court may
also invalidate and strike down the laws, acts, and governmental
actions if found unlawful and beyond the scope of power and
jurisdiction. The judicial review can be sought if the decision maker
was misdirected in terms of the law, exercised a power wrongly, or
improperly purported to exercise a power that it does not have, which
is known as acting ultra vires. We are not convinced in the least that the
policy decision, made up by a dint of the amended impugned notification
of reducing 25% promotion quota and allocating it for the progression of
Field Assistants according to the exigency, was ultra vires to the Act or
the Rules but seemingly, with the aim of harmonizing the promotion
criteria and path of progression, the department allocated a quota for
accommodating the Field Assistants. The learned counsel for the
petitioners remained unsuccessful in persuading us as to how the law in
question is infringing or contravening the fundamental rights or against
the public interest or is against the law. Neither the impugned notification
is ex facie discriminatory nor is it capable of being administered in any
discriminatory manner or is unjust or oppressive. On the contrary, the
competent authority is empowered to establish the yardsticks for
determination of eligibility and fitness which is sine qua non for
promotion, and devising and structuring the recruitment policy falls
within its exclusive line of work and adeptness and in case of exigency
and expediency, it may enact and amend the rules.
CP 2074 OF 2023 ETC.
5
7. The question of eligibility correlates to the terms and conditions of
service, whereas fitness for promotion is a subjective evaluation based on
an objective criteria. Though consideration for promotion is a right, yet
the promotion itself cannot be claimed as of right. There is no vested right
in promotion or rules determining the eligibility for promotion. In the case
of Government of Punjab v. Muhammad Awais Shahid (1991 SCMR 696),
this Court held that as regards the claim for promotion or proforma
promotion, what the civil servant could claim under the law was that he
should be considered when question of promotion was taken up. A civil
servant, could not call upon the Service Tribunal to direct the department
to fill the promotion post forthwith or on a particular date and not to keep
it vacant or under consideration. In the case of Fida Hussain vs. The
secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad (PLD
1995 SC 701), the five member bench of this Court in Suo Motu Review
Petition held that it is the domain of the Government concerned to decide
whether a particular academic qualification of a civil servant employee is
sufficient for promotion from one grade to another higher grade, which
dictum was also reiterated in the case of Maula Bux Shaikh vs. Chief
Minister Sindh (2018 SCMR 2098), while this Court in the case of
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa vs. Hayat Hussain (2016 SCMR
1021), held that the Government is entitled to make rules in the interest
of expediency of service and to remove anomalies in Service Rules. It is
the Service Rules Committee which has to determine the eligibility criteria
of promotion and it is essentially an administrative matter falling within
the exclusive domain and policy decision making powers of the
Government and any interference with such matters by the courts is not
warranted. Whereas this Court in the case of Government of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa vs. Muhammad Javed (2015 PLC (C.S.) 962), while
referring to the case of Zafar Iqbal v. Director, Secondary Education
(2006 SCMR 1427), reiterated the principle that the Government is
always empowered to change the promotion policy, and the domain of the
Government to prescribe the qualification for a particular post through
amendment in the relevant rules, is not challengeable and it was further
held that the promotion cannot be claimed as a vested right. While in the
case of Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman, Islamabad
and another versus Shiraz Manzoor and others (2024 PLC (C.S.) 18), this
CP 2074 OF 2023 ETC.
6
Court affirmed that in the context of promotion, the competent
authority is entitled to formulate rules in the interest of efficiency of
service and that they can also be subjected to change. The formulation
and creation of a recruitment policy falls within the exclusive domain of
the competent authority and it cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny
unless it infringes upon vested rights or is in violation of the law.
8. As a result of above discussion, we do not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal which may
warrant any interference by this Court. All these petitions are dismissed
and leave to appeal is refused.
Judge
Judge
Judge
Islamabad
17.4.2024
Naseer
Approved for reporting