LAHORE: The Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal has declared that permission to apply for higher education and that too from a foreign university is not a rule of thumb for every judicial officer.

“This matter pertains to discretion of the authority to be exercised in light of attending facts and circumstances of each case, saddled with certain requirements/qualifications,” three-member tribunal’s chairman Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi observed in his decision.

A civil judge, Syed Faizan-i-Rasool, appealed to the tribunal against a decision of the Lahore High Court registrar declining his representation for permission to apply for a master degree in law from a foreign university.

The judge submitted that the registrar’s direction to approach a local university for admission in LLM was not in consonance with declared policy of the LHC. He alleged discrimination in the matter saying his other colleagues had been granted such permissions.

On the other hand, the registrar office argued that appellant failed to provide reasons motivating him at this stage of service to get higher education from a foreign university and how the degree would play a pivotal role in his personal growth and add value to his job.

It said the qualification/education i.e. gender sensitisation, possessed by appellant and mentioned in the contents of his application had no relevance with the duties and functions as a judicial officer.

The office argued that appellant’s representation was decided after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and attending all the grounds raised by him. It also rejected the allegation of discrimination.

The tribunal chairman observed that the permission to go abroad for higher education is not backed by any express provisions of the law or rules or policy instructions or prevalent practice.

He noted that the appellant/civil judge, despite arguing the case at some length, could not convince the tribunal’s members that the authority can be compelled to exercise its discretion in each and every case, especially when there is scarcity of judicial officers as compared to the bulk of pending cases.

Justice Sethi observed that in matters of grant of leave, it is well-settled that such discretion cannot be claimed as of right, but for seeking such relief the applicant must follow the proper procedure and he is not supposed to avail any kind of leave entirely in his discretion and choice in departure to the rules and service discipline.

“We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The case law, relied upon by appellant, is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of this case,” the tribunal members unanimously concluded in the decision and dismissed the appeal of the civil judge.

However, the tribunal said the appellant may apply again for such permission at an appropriate stage.

Justice Rasaal Hasan Syed and Justice Abid Husain Chattha were the other members of the subordinate judiciary tribunal, a judicial forum to hear appeals of the district judges relating to their service affairs.

Published in Dawn, May 2nd, 2024