SC rules on seniority principal

The Supreme Courtroom has noticed {that a} specific declare of promotion or seniority was not a basic proper.

Authored by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, a verdict issued by the apex courtroom stated the legislation was considerably and reasonably well-settled in a sequence of dictums of superior courts, highlighting the conspectus {that a} specific declare of promotion or seniority was not a basic proper and an individual was disentitled to assert seniority from a date he was not borne or tackle within the service.

Justice Mazhar noticed this whereas listening to a case pertaining to the service of a petitioner whose enchantment claiming antedated seniority was dismissed by the federal service tribunal.

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

The judgment defined that within the philosophy or jurisprudence of service legal guidelines, nobody has a vested proper to a specific promotion or specific seniority, but it surely was all the time ruled and controlled in accordance with the relevant guidelines and laws with a venue of consideration for development, together with the fixation of seniority in keeping with the standards offered underneath the relevant guidelines.

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

The courtroom stated that so as to streamline the right administration of service, cadre or put up, the appointing authority is required to make out a seniority listing of the members, however no vested proper is conferred to specific seniority in such service, cadre or put up.

“No antedated seniority might be claimed as a vested proper.”

Additionally learn: Justice Isa backs seniority to nominate SC judges

“Although it was an admitted proven fact that the petitioner joined coaching with the batch of forty third CTP however he’s aspiring and impressive for the fixation of his seniority with the batch of thirty fifth CTP (widespread coaching programme) with out passing out in that coaching course which in addition to being unpersuasive and irrational, additionally fairly unfamiliar and alien to the relevant guidelines governing and regulating the rules envisaged for fixation of seniority to any specific put up or cadre.”

The decision famous that at this juncture reference of workplace memorandum dated September 29, 2015, issued by the Institution Division for dedication of inter-se seniority of officers of all occupational teams and companies was fairly vital

“In accordance with the factual matrix, the petitioner joined forty third CTP within the yr 2015 therefore his potential leeway or chance of promotion could be matured after 5 years for BS-18. Had the enchantment of the petitioner been allowed by the discovered Federal Service Tribunal, it could deem to have been allowed antedated seniority in BS-17 with thirty fifth CTP contenders within the yr 2007 which might be tantamount to nurturing qualifying service for promotion for BS-18 & BS-19 with out passing out thirty fifth CTP.”

The petitioner had urged for instructions in opposition to the respondents to grant antedated seniority with impact from 2007 with all consequential advantages which request or expectation was past the principles and norms, the judgement learn.

It stated that it could even be inequitable and unreasonable to the opposite members of service and clearly overturns and obliterates their seniority, who have been neither arrayed earlier than the service tribunal nor was any alternative afforded to them to reply and defend their seniority.

Due to this fact, the bench concluded that the courtroom doesn’t discover any irregularity and perversity within the impugned judgment and dismissed the civil.