TARIQ JAVAID, J.-- The grievance of the petitioner is that he qualified B.Ed., on 26.7.2008 and he was entitled to be promoted as S.S.T on seniority-cum-fitness basis. The petitioner has further maintained that his juniors have been promoted whereas the petitioner has illegally been ignored.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that the respondents Nos. 5 to 9 were promoted with utter disregard to the rules and coddle requirements. The petitioner being senior to them was entitled to the promotion.
2. On the other hand, it has been maintained that D.P.C, was held on 6.2.2008, that is prior to the petitioner qualifying his B.Ed., examination and as such could not be considered in the D.P.C, held on 6.2.20Q8 whereas the next D.P.C, was convened on 28.11.2008 and only cases of deferred employees were considered. No fresh employee was considered in the said D.P.C, It is maintained that the name of the petitioner shall be inserted in the seniority list and it shall be considered in the next D.P.C, whenever it is convened. The respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have filed para-wise comments in which it is maintained that no D.P.C, was convened on 22.1.2009. However, it is stated that the respondents Nos. 5 to 19 were promoted after observance of all coddle requirements but no detail has been given therein. The mere assertion that rules were followed without any explanation with regard to the eligibility of the employee for promotion by ignoring a senior employee is not sufficient, It was imperative for the respondents to give reasons for ignoring the petitioner and promoting his juniors. A mere' assertion that law was followed is not sufficient. The reply is evasive, hence the contents of para No. 7 of the petition are deemed to have been admitted to be true.
3. At the very of set the learned counsel for the respondents assisted by Muhammad Shafi, Assistant Director maintained that no D.P.C, was convened on 22.1.2009. When his attention was drawn to order No. 859/Admn-1, dated 11.2.2009 Annexure "G", annexed with the petition which was issued after meeting of D.P.C, held on 22.1.2009 wherein the in-service teachers were promoted whereas the petitioner has been ignored, he had no answer. Admittedly, the petitioner qualified his B.Ed., examination on 26.7.2008 and the D.P.C, was convened on 22.1.2009. It was imperative for the respondents to consider the petitioner in the said D.P.C. First of all an attempt was made to mislead the Court by concealing that any D.P.C, was convened on 22.1.2009 and when the attention was drawn to the said annexure then the departmental representative had no answer, It is sad that the departmental officers have developed a tendency to invariably suppress the truth, which is very unbecoming of them. The Government must take note of this. Injustice to the fellow employee is not conducive for the proper functioning of the Government Offices. The Government has to be the fairest litigant. The tendency adopted by such Government Officers is deplorable- It is evident that D.P.C, was convened on 22.1.2009 and the petitioner was illegally ignored. The petitioner shall be promoted from the date of promotion of his juniors. He shall also be paid all his back benefits. The petition is allowed with costs.