JUDGMENT SHEET. IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, … Draft WP 1269-2015.pdf · IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH...

JUDGMENT SHEET. IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD.

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT.

W.P No.1269 of 2015

SYED IJAZ HUSSAIN,

Vs.

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ETC.

PETITIONER BY: Hafiz S.A. Rehman ASC and Muhammad Anwar Mughal,

Advocate for petitioners in W.P No. 1523, 1566, 1453, 1454

of 2015.

M/s Muhammad Munir Paracha, ASC and Nauman Munir

Parach, AHC for petitioner in W.P No. 1429/2015.

M/s. Abdul Rahim Bhatti and Yasser Rahim Bhatti,

Advocates for petitioners in W.P Nos. 1383, 1501, 1561,

1562, , 1657 & 2058 of 2015.

M/s Abdur Rehman Siddiqui and Ch. Asghar Ali, Advocates

for petitioners in instant petition as well as Writ Petition

Nos. 1359, 1401, 1416, 1418, 1426, 1432, 1462, 1464, 1466,

1484, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1518, & 1540 of 2015.

Mr. Muhammad Aftab Alam Rana, Advocate for petitioners

in W.P No. 1446 & 1511 of 2015.

Barrister Masroor Shah for petitioners in W.P No. 1440,

1509, 1564 & 1565 and 1583 of 2015.

Mr. Fiaz Ahmed Jandran Advocate for petitioners in W.P

No. 1855/2013, 3656/2014 & 1612/2015.

Mr. Mansoor Beg, Advocate for petitioner in W.P No. 1496

of 2015.

Mr. Saeed Khursheed Ahmed, Advocate for petitioner in

W.P No. 1439 and 1451 of 2015.

Mr. Muhammad Shabbir Bhutta, Advocate for petitioners in

W.P No. 1472, 1542 & 2033 of 2015.

Mr. Ahsan Hameed Dogar, Advocate for petitioners in W.P

No. 1568, 1589, 1607 & 1961 of 2015.

Barrister Muhammad Shoaib Razzaq and Zulfiqar Ali

Safdar Advocates for petitioners in W.P No.1588 of 2015.

Petitioner in person in W.P No. 1415, 1447 & 1955 of 2015.

Mr. M. Kowkab Iqbal, Advocate in W.P No. 2095/2015.

Sardar Taimoor Aslam, Advocate for petitioner in W.P No.

1756 of 2015.

Mr. Ghulam Rasool Bhatti, Advocate for petitioner in W.P

No.1446/2015.

RESPONDENTS BY: Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, Addl. Attorney General and Mr.

Jehangir Khan Jadoon, Standing Counsel.

Ms. Naveeda Noor, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 to 14 in

W.P No. 3656/2014 and respondent Nos. 3 to 7 in W.P No.

1466/2015.

M/s Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen and Muhammad Umair

Baloch, Advocate for respondent No.5 in instant petition and

for respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in W.P No. 1432 of 2015.

Mr. Imran Fazal, Advocate for respondent No. 6 in instant

writ petition and for FBR in W.P Nos. 1426 & 1451 of 2015.

Mrs. Misbah Gulnar Sharif, Advocate for respondent (FBR)

in instant writ petition as well as W.P Nos. 1383 & 1439 of

2015.

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 2

Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry and Mr. Khalid Waheed Khan,

Advocates for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in W.P No. 1383 of

2015.

Ms. Ambreen Khan, Advocate for respondent No. 4 in W.P

No. 1464/2015.

Mr. Muhammad Asif Gujjar, Advocate for respondent Nos.

9, 10 & 15 in W.P No. 1401 of 2015.

Mr. M. Aurangzeb Daha, Senior Prosecutor NAB in W.P

No. 1415/2015.

Respondent No.6 in person in W.P No. 1484 of 2015.

Mr. Ijaz Anwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.12 in W.P No.

1503/2015, respondent No.24 in W.P No.1540/2015 and

respondent Nos.3 in W.P No. 1454 of 2015.

Rai Azhar Iqbal Kharal, Advocate for Pakistan Railways in

W.P Nos. 1446, 1464, 1504 to 1507 & 1518 of 2015.

Barrister Jawad Niazi, Advocate in W.P No. 1588 o f 2015.

Mr. Sajid IjazHotiana, Advocate for respondent No.7 in

instant petition.

Mr. Abdul Saboor and Mr. Naveed Dar, Assistants, M/o

Housing & Works.

Mr. Mohsin Raza Gondal, Deputy Director on behalf of

respondent No.4 in W.P No. 2058/2015.

Mr. Zeeshan Raza Zaidi, Section Officer, Establishment

Division.

DATE OF HEARING: 01.07.2015, 02.07.2015, 06.07.2015,

07.07.2015, 08.07.2015.

DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT

OF JUDGMENT: 27.07.2015.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI; J: Through this Single Judgment, I intend to dispose of

Writ Petition Nos.1269, 1359, 1383, 1401, 1415, 1416, 1418, 1426, 1429, 1432, 1439, 1440,

1446, 1447, 1451, 1453, 1454, 1462, 1464, 1466, 1472, 1484, 1496, 1501, 1503, 1504,

1505, 1506, 1507, 1509, 1511, 1518, 1523, 1524, 1540, 1542, 1561, 1562, 1564, 1565,

1566, 1568, 1583,1588, 1589, 1607, 1612, 1657, 1756, 1955, 1961, 2033, 2058, 2095, 2137

of 2015, Writ Petition Nos.3656 of 2014 & 1855 of 2013 as through all these Writ

Petitions similar questions of law and facts regarding the denial of promotion to the

petitioners in light of the recommendations of the high powered selection board (HPSB) and

Central Selection Board (CSB) have been raised.

2. In all these Writ Petitions almost similar prayers have been made and the gist of the

prayers made by petitioners through above mentioned Writ Petitions is as follows:-

i. That to set aside the impugned decision of the Central Selection Board taken in its

meetings dated 05.05.2015 & 07.05.2015 qua recommendation of respondents for

promotion, by declaring the same illegal, unlawful, unconstitutional and void ab initio;

ii. To reconsider petitioners for promotion on the basis of their PERs and TERs and grant the

same with all consequential and back benefits w.e.f the date their junior colleagues were

recommended as such.

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 3

iii. That the 5 marks meant for integrity/general reputation/perception to be awarded by CSB

on the basis of structural formula have wrongly been reserved for the said purpose and the

same have been given overriding affect on the remaining 10 marks, therefore, be reviewed.

iv. The operation of impugned minutes of the CSB may be suspended and to restrain the

respondents from issuing notification of promotion till the final disposal of writ petitions.

3. Petitioners presented the facts and their respective stance is as under:-

Service Promotion from Grade 21 to 22:

Petitioner Syed Ijaz Hussain, filed Writ Petition No.1269/2015 stating therein

that he presently has been working in BS-21with more than 5 years and 3 months service

experience having earned very good PERs for the last six years. That his name was placed at

serial No. 2 of the seniority list, but he was deferred for promotion and those who were

recommended for promotion, were the ones placed at serial No. 1, 5, 7, 8 and 11.

4. Zafar Iqbal Qadir, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1607/2015 stating therein

that he was serving in BS-21 with more than 5 years and 5 months service in the said grade

having earned one outstanding and five very good PERs during the last 6 years. He also

served as acting secretary (BS-22) to lead IT and Telecommunication Division in the

Federal Government since January 2013 till appointment of new incumbent in office. That

he was placed at serial No.19 of the seniority list considered during the meeting of 22nd

September, 2014 but was deferred for promotion and those who promoted ahead of

petitioner were placed at serial No. 20, 21,22, 23, 25,26 & 27. That the name of petitioner

was on the top in the subsequent two meetings of High Power Selection Board, held in

January 2015 but again he was deferred. Particulars of both the petitioners along with reason

for deferment are reduced into the following table:-

SERVICE PROMOTION FROM GRADE 21 TO 22

SR

NO

TITLE WRIT PETITION

NUMBER SUPERSESSION DEFERMENT

COMPOSITION OF CSB

CHALLANGED

1 1.

Syed Ijaz Hussain

(IRS)

WP No.1269/15 To call for a special report for at

least six months of the officer to

be placed before the board in the

next meeting.

2. Zafar Iqbal Qadir

(PAS)

WP No.1607/15 Case is subjudice before the

Hon’ble Islamabad High Court as

well as performance on merit.

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 4

Both the petitioners have challenged their deferment inter alia on the grounds that the

High Powered Selection Board while formulating their recommendations is to be guided by

the judgments of superior courts of the country upon the basis of which Establishment

Division notified a policy vide No.SRO-789/1/2010 dated 16.08.2010. That as per policy,

the officer in BS-21 is now required to meet the conditions for promotion as contained in

Rule 4 of Civil Servants (Promotion to the post of Secretary BS-22 and equivalent) Rules

2010 which are as under:-

a. Twenty-five years service in BS-17 and above.

b. At least two years in a post in BS-21.

c. At least three “Very Good” reports during the last six years.

d. No penalty under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 or

under the Removal from Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000.

e. Possesses sufficient variety of experience.

5. It is contended that although petitioners fulfilled all of the above requirements still

they have been deferred for promotion. That as ordained by Section 9(2)(a) of the Civil

Servants Act, 1973 and conclusively decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tariq Aziz-

ud-Din’s case reported as 2010 SCMR 1301, promotion to BS-22 can take place strictly and

only on merit on the basis of criteria set forth for promotion. That no doubt the appointing

authority is vested with the executive authority to appoint civil servants in BS-22, however

this authority is to be exercised in accordance with law and the settled principles in this

regard and merit is not to be judged on personal whims rather it is to be gathered from the

officer’s track record. That although the power to promote and appoint a civil servant in BS-

22 is a statutory power, which has to be guided by the mandatory provision of Section 24-A

of General Clauses Act, which says that such powers “shall be exercised reasonably, fairly,

justly and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment.”That petitioners have not

been treated reasonably, fairly and justly which certainly is against the advancement of law

in general and Civil Servants Act in particular. That in absence of any adverse finding or

recommendation against petitioners, they have an accrued right and genuine expectation to

be promoted as per their seniority to BS-22 and in case of denial of such right, not only the

reasons must be recorded but same should also be supported by tangible material duly

conveyed to the petitioners. That withholding of petitioner’s promotion tantamount even

temporarily to subjecting them to a major penalty which could not be done without due

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 5

process of law and in absence of tangible material available on record and an opportunity of

being heard, as such petitioners have been subjected to humiliation without any reasons, that

too in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. That it is settled law laid down by the

august Supreme Court of Pakistan that civil servant is entitled for promotion with effect

from the date his juniors have been promoted as such. Reliance in this regard has been

placed on the case law reported as PLD 1991 SC 118.

Service Promotion from Grade 20 to 21:

6. These petitioners are civil servants belonging to different occupational groups

including the incumbents of Ex cadre posts and they are aggrieved of their denial of

promotion to the next higher post through deferment/supersession, despite meeting the laid

down criteria such as seniority, length of service, experience, required quantification of their

performance evaluation reports (PERs)/training evaluation reports (TERs) on the basis of

award of 15 marks by the Central Selection Board (CSB) particularly the modus operandi of

awarding five crucial marks and consequently the categorization to A, B & C.Those placed

in category C were not to be promoted, while considering the cases of promotion to the next

higher post, with the approval of competent authority. Some of the petitioners are aggrieved

by deferring their cases on the sole ground that the board wanted to further watch all aspects

of promotion including integrity for a period of one year. It is the stance of petitioners who

are seeking their promotion from Grade 20 to 21 that they joined Civil Services after being

declared successful in the Competitive Examination (CSS). Since then, they have been

rendering meritorious services on various positions in various departments and law agencies.

That throughout Petitioners have long and illustrious career, spreading over decades and

have earned “outstanding and very good Annual Confidential/Personal Evaluation Reports

(PERs)”. Further averred that Petitioners integrity has never been called into question by any

Reporting/Assessing Officers or by the countersigning superiors on their (PERs). That a

meeting of central Selection Board took place on 05.05.2015 and in subsequent meetings

wherein the Petitioners were placed along with their colleagues before CSB to be considered

for promotion to BPS-21 but in sheer violation to rules, petitioners have been

deferred/superseded without any reason. That as Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973

read with Rule 7 of the Civil Servant (AP&T) Rules 1973, a civil servant possessing such

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 6

minimum qualification as may be prescribed shall be eligible for promotion to higher post

for the time being reserved under the rules for departmental promotion in service or cadre to

which he belonged. However, in the matter in hand, the Central Selection Board has acted in

oblivion to the aforementioned provision of law and Petitioners have been deprived of their

lawful right without any fault attributable to them. That the impugned action is violative of

law laid down by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan through judgment reported as 2010

SCMR 1301 (Tariq Aziz-ud-Din Case) wherein it has been categorically held that denial

from the consideration for promotion is a major penalty, therefore, consideration of an

officer for promotion was to be based not only on relevant law and rules but also to be based

on some tangible material relating to merit and eligibility which could be lawfully taken

note of. It is the duty of competent Authority to consider the merit of all the eligible

candidates while putting them in juxtaposition, to find out the meritorious amongst them.

Merit includes limitations prescribed under the law. Discretion is to be exercised according

to rational reasons which means that there be finding of primary facts based on good

evidence, decisions about facts be made for reasons which serve the purpose of statute in an

intelligent and reasonable manner. Actions which do not meet these threshold requirements

are considered arbitrary and mis-use of power. It was further held that the object of good

governance cannot be achieved without application of mind. Such objectives cannot be

achieved by exercising discretionary powers unreasonably, arbitrarily and without

application of mind. Rather such objectives can be achieved by following rules of justness,

fairness and openness in consonance with command of Constitution.

7. That the impugned action of the official Respondents is also repugnant to Articles

25, 37 and 38 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 as the Petitioners

have not only been treated discriminately by the official Respondents as they recommended

for promotion, similarly rather badly placed persons but the Petitioners have been deprived

of their lawful right of future prospects, hence the impugned action of the Respondents is

liable to be interfered with on the basis of law laid down by the Superior courts of Pakistan

in cases reported as 2003 SCMR 291; 2004 PLC (CS) 586 and 2010 PLC (CS) 515. That as

per Section 24A of The General Clauses Act and instructions contained in ESTACODE

2007 at pg 251, para 9 , as well as law laid down by the Superior Courts of Pakistan , the

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 7

Departmental Authorities are bound to decide the grievance of their subordinates with

application of independent judicial mind, fairly, justly and with reasons and those reasons

must be communicated to the concerned, whereas in the instant matter the official

Respondents have acted in sheer violation of cases reported as 1998 SCMR 2268 and 2011

SCMR1. That the impugned office Memorandum dated 10.02.2014, copy whereof is

annexed herewith and marked B whereby 15 marks have been placed at the discretion of the

CSB is structured in utter violation of the dicta laid down by this honorable court as well as

Honorable Supreme court of Pakistan as the same is tainted with malice and mala fide for

the simple reason that 5 marks meant for integrity/general/ reputation/ perception have not

only been wrongly reserved for the said purpose but the same have been given over riding

effect on the remaining 10 marks due to the note contained under the said formula saying

that getting less than 3 out of 5 marks under this parameter will result in supersession by the

CSB which means nothing but to brush aside the entire record of a candidate including

assessment on his integrity as set out in the PERs under the carpet and to make the said

structuring ineffective and give the CSB veto power by resorting the position prior to the

aforesaid judgments which amounts to sheer contempt of court , hence the same is liable to

be set aside.

8. Learned Counsel for Petitioners M/s Hafiz S.A Rehman, Muhammad Munir Paracha,

Abdul Raheem Bhatti, Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, Barrister Masroor Shah, Muhammad

Shabbir Bhutta, Fiaz Ahmad Jandran, Saeed Khursheed Ahmed, M. Kowkab Iqbal,

Barrister Muhammad Shoaib Razzaq, Ahsan Hameed Dogar and Mansoor Beg, Advocates,

on the question of maintainability of the writ petitions particularly with reference to adverse

aspersion/deferment amounting to superannuation has made reference to Section 4 of the

Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which reads as follow:

Section 4-1(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973: -

“No appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a

departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be

appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade.”

Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 22 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 regarding right

of appeal or representation, also bars appeal/representation against matters relating to

determination of fitness, the same is reproduced below:

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 8

“Provided that no representation shall lie on matters relating to the

determination of fitness of a person to hold a post”.

That the promotion policy specifically envisaged is a power of the Central Selection

Board/Departmental Promotion Committee which are as under:-

1. 2nd proviso to Rule 4(1) of Civil Servants Appeal Rules, 1977 clearly states as under:-

Provided further that no appeal or review shall lie on mattes relating to the

determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a

higher post or grade”

2. Proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 22 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 regarding right of

appeal or representation also bars appeal/ representation against matters relating to

determination of fitness, the same is reproduced below:

“Provided that no representation shall lie on matters relating to the determination of

fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade”

3. No person can be left remedy less under the law as per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case reported as PLD 1989 SC – 26.

That this Hon'ble Court, therefore, has the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the

matter and redress the grievances accrued to the petitioners as laid down by the Hon'ble

High Court in the case reported as 1993 PLC (CS) 576, the relevant portion whereof is

reproduced as under:-

“(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973….

Art. 199… Punjab Service Tribunal Act (IX of 1974), S. 4… Fitness or suitability of

civil servant for being considered for promotion…. Jurisdiction to resolve such

question did not vest in the Service Tribunal… High Court is the proper forum to

adjudicate upon such matter in exercise of its Constitutional Jurisdiction”

9. Learned counsel added that this Hon’ble Court in the case of Iram Adnan and

others Vs. FOP etc. reported as 2012 PLC (CS) 1355 and Hon’ ble Lahore High Court in

case of Liaqat Ali Chughtai Vs. Federation of Pakistan etc., reported as 2012 PLC (CS)

1062 and august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Oriya Maqbool Abbasi reported

as 2014-SCMR-817 have already provided the guidelines, although stance of the

respondents is that new policy and formula is based on the ratio of these judgments but in

fact this formula has frustrated these judgments. The modus operandi of the Central

Selection Board qua so-called deferment has almost all the attributes of the supersession, in

which the requirement of earning one full year ACR before the consideration of the officers

against the higher post, reference is invited to the promotion policy (Estacode 2007). That in

fact, the so-called supersession, is a device to punish the officers for no good reason

particularly when they have already earned outstanding reports which is the highest grade in

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 9

the quantification of the Performance Evaluation Reports. It is not a simple deferment but

question of integrity and performance has been linked, showing the real malafide intention

of the CSB/competent authority when nothing tangible is available on record on such

account. The instant deferment for all practical purpose, is adverse order after having been

made by the CSB with reference to determination of fitness which is obviously outside the

scope of Federal Service Tribunal under Section 4(b)(b) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973.

That the supersession has been labeled as deferment in order to deceive the officers for

promoting their blue eyed at the cost of the petitioners, knowing well all vacancies by that

time would be filled leaving no room for consideration of promotion of officers so deferred

by the Central Selection Board.

10. It is further contended that the question of malafide of law and facts in this

case is floating on the surface of the record of the minutes of the Central Selection Board

and the same may graciously be perused to arrive at a just and fair conclusion. That the

question of determination of fitness in all the cases is obvious and question of

maintainability of the writ under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is beyond any

doubt. In this respect the latest view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as laid down

in C.P.No.66 of 2009 vide order dated 01.04.2015 is very obvious. That the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Pakistan in another recent judgment Secretary Establishment Division Vs.

Aftab Ahmed Manikan reported as 2015 SCMR 1006 has drawn a distinction between

Article 212 (2) and 199 regarding question of maintainability of the writ petition and finally

held that a writ in a promotion matter where question of fitness is involved, is maintainable.

As regards the reports of the agency on the integrity of the civil servant, it is pertinent to

submit that there is a specific reference on the point in Part-III, Sr.No.2 regarding integrity

[morality, uprightness and honesty] and in all the cases officers having decades of service at

their credit, earning reports from variety of Reporting and Countersigning Officers of

integrity could not be sacrificed at the altar of agency reports and that too without

confronting to the civil servant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated

24.04.2001 (available on pages 112 & 113 of W.P.No.2058/2015) passed in C.A

No.295/2001 (Commissioner Rawalpindi Division Vs. Malik Tariq Rahim) laid down the

law in this regard. That the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as PLD

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 10

1986 SC 168 has also authoritatively held, that any secret report not disclosed to the

accused civil servants could not be used against them. Reliance is also placed on PLD 2012

SC 106, PLD 1965 SC 90 and PLD 1968 Lahore1630.

11. That the reasons for deferment despite fulfilling all the conditions as laid

down in the Revised Promotion Policy, 2007 the three writ petitioners i.e. Writ Petition

No.1383/2015 (Khawaja Adnan Zaheer Vs. Federation of Pakistan, Writ Petition

No.1501/2015 (Dr. Lubna and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan) and Writ Petition

No.2058/2015 (Ghulam Hyder Khaskheli Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others) were

deferred with the reasons “the CSB recommended him for deferment for the reason that

the Board wanted to further watch his work related performance for a period of one year”

The performance of the aforementioned petitioners were either outstanding or very good

during a period of at least three years and in the case of Ghulam Hyder Khashkheli, he is

retiring on 29th July, 2015 (now retired) and this fact was on record before the Central

Selection Board. One of the ingredient of an officer superseded is to earn one full year

report before consideration for promotion to the next higher post, therefore, the impugned

deferment order made by the CSB/competent authority is in fact, supersession under the

garb of deferment. In the case of Writ Petition No.1561/2015 (Tariq Mahmood Javaid Vs.

Federation of Pakistan and others) and Writ Petition No.1562/2015 (Muhammad Yasin Shar

Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others), the officers belong to Secretariat Group having

experience on the side of Secretariat work and they are entitled for promotion to the next

higher post in the Secretariat Group by meeting all the conditions as laid down in the

Revised Promotion Policy, 2007. They have also been deprived of promotion on flimsy

grounds and the same has not been communicated despite a mandatory provision in the

aforesaid policy. Their deferment also amounts to supersession and merits consideration for

promotion from the date their juniors were promoted to the next higher post. The next case

i.e. Writ Petition No.1657/2015 (Sohail Akhtar Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others), in

this case the petitioner was deferred for not doing mandatory course for promotion to BS-20

despite being on the technical specialized side and also been exempt from doing such course

after having crossed the prescribed age of 58 years as per laid down criteria in the Revised

Promotion Policy of 2007. The factum of exemption with reference to his date of birth was

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 11

on the top of the proforma of the officer’s record and could have easily been noticed before

deferring the officer for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer (BS-20).

12. In the case i.e Writ Petition No.1756 (Fasih-ud-Din Vs. The State), learned

counsel for petitioner Sardar Taimoor Aslam, Advocate contended that Petitioner provided a

copy of the letter of the NAB authorities during the course of arguments which clearly stated

that the Petitioner was exonerated from the NAB proceedings as far back in 2013 which

speak volumes of the approach of the Promotion Committee. The departmental proceedings

initiated in view of the NAB proceedings from which the Petitioner was exonerated were

also closed due to the same fact. Without prejudice to the aforementioned, the grounds

raised by the Respondents for recommending the deferment of Petitioner is belied of any

logic and finds no basis in law. The Honorable Superior Courts have held time and again

that mere pendency of proceedings is no ground for deferment and non-consideration.

Reliance in this regard is placed on 2007 SCMR 1355, PLJ 2008 LAHORE 942, 2007 PLC

(C.S.) 716, 2007 PLC (C.S.) 811, 2011 PLC (C.S.) 534 SINDH HIGH COURT. Further

discrimination was also argued and it was averred that two of the PSP officers namely

Majeed Marwat and Suleman have been promoted in the present impugned meeting to grade

21 and both of them have NAB proceedings pending against them. Furthermore there are

also a few other officers who have been promoted and have NAB trials pending against

them in the learned Accountability Courts.Learned counsel prayed for acceptance of the

Petition while quashing the decision of the CSB & to issue a direction to them for promoting

the Petitioner to BPS 20 with all back benefits.

13. Petitioner, Farooq Amin Qureshi through Writ Petition No.1447 of 2015

contended that on 28.08.2006, he was victimized by the CSB on its recommendations to

competent authority, by superseding him for promotion to BS-20, relying on the fake

intelligence reports which were prepared malafidely. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the

supersession of petitioner as not being sustained according to law and ordered to promote

the petitioner from the date when his juniors were promoted i.e. 12.12.2006 (copy of

Honorable Sindh High Court order placed at pages 41-53 of titled writ petition) but

respondents did not implement said order and subsequent orders passed in contempt

proceedings in letter and spirit at the relevant time, meanwhile those juniors got further

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 12

promotions and now they are in BS-22 and few are also the members of present CSB. That

Petitioner remained out of Police cadre posts from 1999 to 2010 due to political

victimization. That petitioner was posted in Punjab Government as DIG Inspection and

Vigilance and Project Director Model Police Stations Punjab from 2011 to 2014 and raised

the infrastructure of model police stations which had been appreciated by the present

Government of Punjab. That in previous CSB meeting held in February 2014 Petitioner’s

PERs & TERs score was 73.29marks and was placed in “A” category and CSB awarded 11

marks (out of 15 marks at its disposal which includes the 5(five) marks (1/3rd weightage)

under Integrity/General reputation parameters. Petitioner got total Score of 84.29as per

promotion policy framed in the light of Supreme Court’s judgment in C.P.No.22/2013 after

keeping in view the record position, integrity, performance of the petitioner known to the

Board members as well as pen picture of the petitioner contained in his PERs and training

evaluation reports. The CSB recommended the petitioner for promotion to BS-21. However,

petitioner’s case was referred back to CSB by the worthy Prime Minister for

review/reconsideration inspite of “Good” integrity report as learnt to be prepared in 2014

by Government of Pakistan Intelligence Bureau Lahore, Punjab Province where petitioner

served from 2010 to 2014 as D.I.G Inspection & Vigilance Punjab. That the CSB of 7th May

2015 recommended him for deferment for one year to observe his work related

performance. The petitioner’s ACR of 2014 which is reportedly very good was also

available with respondents at that time but was ignored as it appears that CSB had already

made up its mind to defer the petitioner on vague grounds as to observe his work related

performance for further one year.That no question on the work related performance of the

petitioner was raised in CSB meeting held in February 2014, when petitioner was

recommended for promotion to BS-21 with total Score of 84.29 but surprisingly was raised

by CSB on 7th May, 2015 which shows malafide intentions of the respondents as the

petitioner has been punished by the respondents for knocking the doors of superior courts

for justice against non-compliance of court orders. That the reason on which the current

CSB deferred the petitioner is the follow-up of the deferment of petitioner by CSB in 2013

wherein distorted facts were placed before the CSB that petitioner has not commanded any

range hence not recommended for promotion to BS-21.This was done in reaction to the

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 13

contempt applications filed by the petitioner for non-compliance of the Sindh High Court

orders of 18-10-2010,18-12-2012 and 8-2-2013.The respondents after non-compliance of

court orders deferred the petitioner unlawfully and then filed their CPLA No.254 of 2013

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan against the Honorable Sindh High Court

order for promotion of petitioner in BS-21 on the ground of work related performance.

The petitioner filed his concise statement in reply to the CPLA wherein it was submitted

before apex court that petitioner had commanded the largest range of country i.e. Karachi

for one year and commanded many districts for more than four years. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court of Pakistan dismissed their CPLA and acknowledged and approved the work related

performance of the petitioner for all intent and purposes from 12.12.2006 which is for the

next promotion of the petitioner in BS-21in its judgment dated 14.05.2013 which has

attained finality and the same cannot be questioned again by CSB or the competent

authority. That the CSB of 7th May, 2015 changed its opinion without any tangible material

available against the petitioner at the time of meeting which clearly shows that the CSB has

acted with malafide intention and neglected its own recommendations of 2014 on the basis

of same material for promotion of the petitioner from BS-20 to BS-21. That the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Pakistan in its judgment passed in CPs.No.41 and 66/2015 directed the

CSB to re-examine the cases on the basis of the criteria already set for promotion but

the CSB did not act judiciously and justly and violated the Supreme Court’s orders and was

influenced in making above recommendations for deferment of the petitioner and did not

apply independent mind as directed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan.

14. Learned Counsel for Petitioners Mr. M. Aftab Alam Rana ASC, in Writ

petition Nos.1446 & 1511 of 2015, contended that petitioner Munir Khan Khilijis fully

qualified for promotion to BS-20, as being senior, holding the post of BS-20 on current

charge basis, no penalty, no inquiry, no notice, no adverse ACR, is on his account yet his

junior is promoted. Whereas as per Instructions, Rules & law only a qualified/eligible person

could be appointed on current charge and the same amounts to promotion.

15. Regarding petitioner Rana Luqman in Writ Petition No.1511 of 2015 learned

counsel contended that he was allocated Income Tax Group (Now IRS) after qualifying CSS

exam in 1984. Petitioner served the department as Income Tax Officer/Assistant

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 14

Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner Income Tax, Additional Commissioner Income Tax/

Additional Commissioner Income Tax Inland Revenue and Commissioner Inland Revenue,

which shows variety of experience as well. That whole of the service record of petitioner is

completely unblemished, ACRs are either very good or excellent and this contention is not

in the air rather could be ascertained from the record. That petitioner earned number of

promotions on the basis of his performance only. The department earlier refused to promote

the petitioner to BS-20 on the same allegations and as such he filed writ petition

No.323/2012, which was clubbed with another writ petition No.3483/2012 titled as: Ms.

Iram Adnan etc, however before announcement of the Judgment the respondent promoted

the petitioner to BS-20 vide Notification dated 11.03.2013 meaning thereby that the whole

record up to 11.03.2013 was up to the mark as on the basis of the said good record petitioner

was allowed promotion to BS-20. That Petitioner is again denied promotion to BS-21

without any reason while number of juniors were promoted. Petitioner filed the instant writ

petition and on the direction of this Hon’ble Court, department filed reply and informed that

the petitioner has been deferred but again without any reason. This Hon’ble Court again

directed the department to produce reasons and then it was informed that the petitioner is

deferred as “the Board want to further watch his performance for a period of one year

in all aspects including integrity.” But again no reason is given that as to why and on what

basis the Board came to this conclusion. That petitioner produced before this Hon’ble Court

Certificate dated 20.06.2013, Pay Slips & a chart showing that the petitioner was awarded

Performance Allowance due to his excellent performance for the last many years. No

adverse ACR, No Notice and so much so no inquiry etc is pending.

16. On the point of Writ Jurisdiction of High Court, Learned counsel referred to

Section 9 of Civil Servant Act, 1973 and contended that the language of this section shows

that only the cases of eligible/qualified civil servants are placed before the Board and Board

has to determine the fitness for promotion as such any order of Board regarding fitness could

be challenged before this Hon’ble Court. That under Section 22 (Proviso) read with

Section 4 (1) (b) of Service Tribunal Act, no departmental appeal lies against the order of

grant/denial of promotion. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners placed reliance on

the following case law’s:-

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 15

2012 PLC (C.S) 1355, IRAM ADNAN CASE

HAFIZ MUHAMMAD ANEES CASE WRIT PETITION NO.1169/2013 DATED

30.05.2013

CIVIL PETITION NO.472/2014 DATED 27.04.2015

2005 PLC (CS) 974 (d) (e) (f)

2007 SCMR 682

2014 PLC (CS) 1134

2015 SCMR 1006

17. It is further contended that Consideration for promotion is an inalienable right

which could not be denied. The consideration must be serious, reasonable, fair, bona fide,

honest and in genuine application of mind and appreciation of comparative rights and

record. The object of consideration should be to grant promotion not to deny the same,

reliance is placed on case laws reported as 2009 PLC (CS) 40, PLD 2010 SC 857 AT 870,

2014 PLC (CS) 1134. That in view of judgments of Apex court reported as 2008 PLC (CS)

1121 AT1125, 2010 SCMR 1301withholding of promotion is a major penalty.That pending

inquiry/minor penalty is no bar for promotion 2009 PLC (CS) 40. That reasons & material

for denial of promotion must be communicated/confronted and in this regard reference is

made to Esta Code, 2007 + Promotion Policy. P. 251, 2003 PLC (CS) 503 AT 513.That

Seniority plays a very important role in the career of civil servants as such promoting juniors

and leaving seniors is illegal. Seniority even in selection posts of BS-20 to BS-22 plays

pivotal role reliance is placed on case law reported as 2010 SCMR 130.

18. Learned counsel for Petitioner, in Writ Petition No.1524 and 2137 of 2015

Mr. Aziz Nishtar, Advocate contended that Petitioner’s case (in W.P No.2137/2015) was

deferred for 6 months during May 5-11, 2015 meetings without realizing that he was going

to retire on 14.8.2015 on attaining the age of superannuation. That even the respondents in

parawise comments {para 8(ii)} have intimated that petitioner’s case of promotion will be

considered in the next scheduled meeting of CSB in 3rd week of September, 2015 as per

their letter No.3/1/2015-CP-VI dated 21st May, 2015. Interestingly the respondents have

once again not taken the cognizance of the fact that the petitioner was going to retire on

14.8.2015 much before scheduled CSB meeting in September, 2015. The above scenario

clearly shows that the petitioner’s promotion case is being dealt by the CSB and now by the

respondents not only whimsically but also without application of mind. That CSB worked

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 16

against the constitutional provision and against the law violating the spirit of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court Judgment dated 22.04.2015.

19. On the other hand, Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, learned Addl. Attorney General,

assisted by Mr. Jehangir Khan Jadoon, learned standing counsel made submissions that for

purposes of judging the maintainability and merits of the writ petitions, it is necessary to

first determine which order holds the field whereby the petitioners could consider

themselves aggrieved within the contemplation of Article 199(1)(a) of the Constitution and

contended that admittedly, all recommendations of both supersession and deferment

impugned by the petitioners have not been approved by the competent authority. Instead, an

order of deferment for a short period till next meeting of the CSB has been passed by the

competent authority in the cases of all the petitioners without exception. Resultantly, all the

petitioners shall be considered afresh for promotion in the next CSB meeting already

scheduled and announced to be held in September, 2015. It is thus an incontrovertible

factual position that the order or decision holding field at present is only the competent

authority’s order/decision of deferment for a short period till September, 2015. The

recommendations of CSB of both supersession and deferment for a longer period of six to

twelve months are no more in the field. This also shows that the competent authority’s

order/decision of deferment is in fact a beneficial order as compared to the

recommendations made by CSB, in that, not only supersession have been converted, into

deferment but longer deferments have also been cut short to a much shorter period till

September, 2015 when the next CSB will consider all the petitioners for promotion again.

The petitioners further stand to benefit by retaining their seniority with their batch when

promoted after deferment. That the competent authority while not approving the CSB’s

recommendations had no option but to refer the cases back for fresh consideration by CSB

for the purposes of promotion in accordance with the statutory mandate of section 9 of the

Civil Servants Act, 1973 (CSA) and rules 7 and 8 of the Civil Servants (Appointment,

Transfer and Promotion) Rules, 1973 (ATP Rules) requiring promotion to be made on the

recommendations of CSB.

20. Learned AAG further contended that it is important to understand here that

upon consideration of an eligible civil servant, there could only be two possible outcomes

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 17

i.e. either (a) he/she is determined to be fit or unfit for promotion and accordingly

recommended for promotion or supersession; or (b) determination of fitness is postponed for

some reason resulting in deferment of his/her case for the time being. “Deferment” thus

means to defer the very determination of fitness of a civil servant and to consider his/her

case afresh at a subsequent meeting of CSB. The word deferment has been defined in the

Black’s Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition) as “act of delaying; postponement”.

21. Learned Additional Attorney General next contended that in view of foregoing

factual position the following are the implications for maintainability of the writ petitions:

a. Petitions not challenging the competent authority’s order/decision are not

maintainable since the order holding field has neither been appended

therewith nor assailed therein to begin with. Admittedly, none of the

petitioners have sought amendment to their petitions or prayer clauses therein

to pose challenge to the order/decision of the competent authority, nor have

they placed the impugned order on record. All oral arguments addressed at

the bar on behalf of the petitioners were also solely targeted at and

challenging the merits of CSB’s recommendations, which has now become a

sheer academic exercise. In their present form, the petitions failing to

challenge the competent authority’s order/decision are not maintainable.

b. Petitions challenging CSB’s recommendations which are no more holding

field – having not been approved by the competent authority and having been

nullified by the competent authority’s order/decision of deferment for a short

period till September, 2015 – are not maintainable as they have become

infructuous.

c. Even otherwise mere recommendations by the CSB do not afford an

actionable cause to the petitioners whereby they could be considered

“aggrieved” within the contemplation of the Article 199(1)(a) of the

Constitution. Recommendations alone do not constitute an adverse order

unless approved by the competent authority and resulting in passing of an

adverse order as envisaged to be passed and communicated to the concerned

civil servant under paragraph 9 of the Promotion Policy of 2007 (revised till

date). Reliance is placed on 1995 SCMR 876.

d. That the superior Courts have been assuming jurisdiction in service matters

of civil servants pertaining to promotion only where an appeal to FST is not

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 18

allowed under paragraph (b) of the proviso to section 4(1) of STA 1973. On

the other hand, Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution read with section 3(2) of

STA 1973 vest “exclusive jurisdiction” in FST “inrespect of matters relating

to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants”. Promotion is

admittedly part of the terms and conditions of service of civil servants.

Needless to state that the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court invoked by

the petitioners under Article 199 of the Constitution is “Subject to the

Constitution” as evident from the opening phrase of Article 199. Also the

relevant Constitutional provisions i.e. (a) Article 212(1) vesting exclusive

jurisdiction in FST being an administrative tribunal established pursuant to

the said Constitutional provision; and (b) Article 212(2) creating

Constitutional bar on the jurisdiction of other Courts including this hon’ble

Court – both start with a non obstante clause i.e. “Notwithstanding anything

hereinbefore contained” thereby giving it an overriding effect over Article

199 which is contained before Article 212 in the Constitution. This is besides

the fact that remedy before FST would by definition be considered an

alternate adequate remedy within the contemplation of Article 199(1) of the

Constitution.

e. Petitioners cannot be considered “aggrieved” of the order/decision of

deferment made by the competent authority, whereas a civil servant must be

“aggrieved” of an order to be able to agitate the jurisdiction of both FST

(under section 4 of STA 1973) and this Hon’ble Court (under Article

199(1)(a) of the Constitution). Indeed, in the petitioners’ case, the competent

authority has not approved CSB’s recommendations of supersession and

longer deferment and has instead passed an order/decision of simple

deferment for a short period till September, 2015.

f. It is now well-settled that promotion cannot be claimed by the petitioners as a

vested right and in the absence of a legal grievance as discussed in the

preceding submissions, superior Courts of the country have always refrained

from entertaining writ petitions in such cases. Reliance is placed on

Government of Pakistan vs Hameed Akhter Niazi (PLD 2003 SC 110) which

holds at para 22 as under:

“22. Section 9 of the Act of 1973 deals with "Promotion". It may be

regarding "selection post" or "non-selection post". In case of selection

post as involved in these matters, the criterion for promotion is merit,

while in case of non-selection post it is done on the basis of seniority

cum fitness. No civil servant can ask for promotion as a right, and the

giving or refusal of promotion is a matter, which is within the

exclusive domain of the government/executive authority. If a

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 19

promotion is denied to a civil servant it could not be termed as denial

of any' fundamental right.” [Emphasis added]

g. Only a few petitions have challenged the Establishment Division’s Office

Memorandum No.F.1/1/2012-CP-2 dated 10.02.2014 (“OM”) annexed

therewith the Objective Assessment Form for allocation of fifteen (15)

discretionary marks to be given by CSB to each candidate for promotion.

What has been challenged is the provision made therein that should a civil

servant score less than three (3) marks out of five (5) marks allocated to the

head “Integrity/General Reputation/Perception”, then he/she may be

superseded or deferred by the CSB at its discretion with reasons recorded in

writing. It may be mentioned that any challenge to the aforesaid OM would

also be maintainable only before FST by way of an appeal in its exclusive

jurisdiction vested under Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution read with

sections 3(2) and 4(1) of STA 1973. This is because the OM clearly pertains

to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants in terms of affecting

their prospects for promotion. It is now well-settled that anything affecting

prospects for promotion is not of itself a determination of fitness for

promotion but a method or means of such promotion which can be agitated

before FST as part of the right of an eligible officer to be considered for

promotion. Hence, a writ petition would not be competent under Article 199

of the Constitution. This is besides the fact that appeal before FST would by

definition constitute an alternate adequate remedy envisaged under Article

199(1) of the Constitution. Reliance is placed on I.A Sherwani’s case (1991

SCMR 1041), wherein the august Supreme Court authoritatively held at

paragraph 10 thereof as under:

“10. From the above cited cases, it is evident that it has been

consistently held inter alia by this Court that a civil servant if is

aggrieved by a final order, whether original or appellate, passed by a

departmental authority in respect of his terms and conditions, his

remedy, if any, is by way of an appeal before the Service Tribunal

even where the case involves vires of a particular Service Rule or a

notification or the question, whether an accused civil servant can

claim the right to be represented by a counsel before the Enquiry

Officer. We are inclined to hold that if a statutory rule or a

notification adversely affects the terms and conditions of a civil

servant, the same can be treated as an order in terms of subsection (1)

of section 4 of the Act in order to file an appeal before the Service

Tribunal. … However, we may clarify that a civil servant cannot by-

pass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by adding a ground of

violation of the Fundamental Rights. The Service Tribunal will have

jurisdiction in a case which is founded on the terms and conditions of

the service even if it involves the question of violation of the

Fundamental Rights …” [Emphasis added]

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 20

h. Even otherwise, what the OM provides for is something belonging to the

domain of Promotion Policy of the Government. It is the discretion of the

Government to introduce and revise its promotion policy from time to time

and the Court cannot substitute the policy decision with its own opinion.

Revised Promotion Policy of 2007 together with OM dated 10.02.2014 that

allocates fifteen (15) marks to the discretion of the CSB and the manner in

which it is done are policy decisions and it is the exclusive domain of the

government to prescribe qualifications for a particular post which is not

justifiable as a policy matter before this Hon’ble Court. If the Court ventures

upon giving its own policy view, there will be no end to suggestions on how

to structure the Promotion Policy in terms of weight assigned to the

discretionary marks of CSB and the various components thereof. The

collective wisdom of the members of CSB drawn from amongst senior-most

members of federal bureaucracy also including two Parliamentarians

(comprising one Opposition member) are to be trusted since no perfect

objective criteria could ever be made and an element of subjectivity based on

trust will stay there. Indeed, this Hon’ble Court too would not venture upon

giving its own assessment criteria.

i. Lastly, this Hon’ble Court’s jurisdiction is governed by the Constitution and

the law as discussed above. Having no jurisdiction in the matter and the

petitions being not maintainable, this Hon’ble Court cannot assume

jurisdiction on the notion of simply applying its earlier judgment(s) to

examine if the same were followed or not. These are neither contempt nor

execution proceedings. Such an exercise could only be undertaken by the

forum/Court of competent jurisdiction, which if at all is FST in the instant

cases.

22. Learned AAG further contended that it is worth to note that the petitioners’

counsel have all only argued against the CSB’s recommendations without saying anything

substantial against the competent authority’s order/decision of deferment. It is thus

requested that since all petitioners are in any case being considered afresh for promotion in

the CSB meeting to be held shortly, therefore, indulging into merits of the case would be an

unnecessary strain on the precious time of this Hon’ble Court. However, since this Hon’ble

Court has so desired, thus the submissions on merits are being made without prejudice to the

Federation’s arguments on maintainability of these petitions. It may also be highlighted that

examining the CSB’s recommendations and its application of the provisions of revised

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 21

Promotion Policy of 2007 including the Objective Assessment Criteria developed in light of

the superior Courts’ judgments, would merely be an academic exercise since the CSB’s

recommendations are no more in the field and Courts do not indulge in a mere academic

exercise. Nonetheless, following are the arguments on merits. That the CSB has a statutory

role as envisaged in section 9 of CSA 1973 read with rules 7 and 8 of APT Rules. A

distinction ought to be kept in mind between selection and non-selection posts. For selection

posts, an officer may “eminently be suitable for promotion but is superseded merely because

a junior might be found to be comparatively more meritorious” (2006 P L C (C.S) 564). The

legislature in its wisdom has thus conferred a role upon the CSB to assess/evaluate officers

and make recommendations for promotions to selections posts. The wisdom of the

legislature vis-à-vis statutory role of the CSB to undertake the aforesaid process of

“selection” is certainly not under challenge before this Hon’ble Court. The nature of a

“selection” process thus also be borne in mind while discussing merits of the petitioners’

case which remains undisputed.

23. It is argued that Section 9 of CSA 1973 and Promotion Policy, 2007 (revised

till date) give rationale/justification for giving overriding effect to the recommendations of

the CSB. Section 9(3) of CSA 1973 states that promotion in post of BPS-20 and 21 and

equivalent shall be made on the recommendations of a Board (CSB) which shall be headed

by the Chairman FPSC. It means that the recommendations of CSB will form the basis for

selection of civil servants for promotion. The CSB’s role is thus by definition an overbearing

and overriding one. Accordingly, in any assessment criteria for promotion, CSB’s own

assessment and determination of an officer’s fitness for promotion to a selection post shall

be pivotal and instrumental. Likewise, the weight assigned to Performance Evaluation

Reports (PERs) and Training Evaluation Reports (TERs) earned by an officer shall be

proportionate but not overwhelming. In view of this, in the revised Promotion Policy of

2007, due to the respective importance of different components of assessment individually

and collectively, an overriding effect has been given to the assessment made by CSB in the

following two ways:

i. If the officer is allotted less than 3 marks under the column/head of

“integrity/general reputation/perception” in the Objective Assessment

Form, then CSB may supersede or defer him with reasons to be recorded

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 22

in writing regardless of his evaluation in other areas. This is because of

the importance attached to this head in light of the recent judgments of

the superior Courts to ensure an honest bureaucracy at the highest level of

governance.

ii. If the officer is placed in Category C after collective

assessment/evaluation of various components stipulated in the Objective

Assessment Form where categories include Category A (11 to 15 marks),

Category B (06 to 10 marks) and Category C (00 to 05 marks), then also

he may be superseded on an overall basis.

In both ‘i’ and ‘ii’ above, CSB’s assessment has been given overriding effect

over the PERs and TERs. It is further submitted that while ‘i’ above has been impugned

before this Hon’ble Court, ‘ii’ has not been challenged by any of the petitioners. Hence,

even if ‘i’ is declared illegal, the overriding effect of CSB’s assessment under ‘ii’ above

shall remain valid. That the CSB makes recommendations purely on merit based on the

collective wisdom and knowledge of the CSB members acquired over more than thirty (30)

years of their service. The attribute of “integrity/general reputation/perception” was inserted

in the Objective Assessment Form for the CSB to evaluate officers not merely on the basis

of integrity as reported in the PERs/TERs but also to form collective opinion as to the

general reputation and perception about officers in a reasonable, fair and equitable manner.

Giving overriding effect to the five (05) discretionary marks regarding integrity, general

reputation and/or perception is fully in consonance with the spirit of the judgment of Orya

Maqbool Abbasi’s case (2014 SCMR 817).

24. That fifteen (15) marks to be allocated by the CSB are discretionary marks

and are distinct from the 85 marks based on PERs and TERs. These fifteen discretionary

marks are based on the collective wisdom and personal and shared knowledge of the CSB

members. If the overriding effect of CSB’s discretionary marks is taken away, then its role

would become redundant and this will be in violation of the statutory mandate of section 9

of CSA 1973 requiring promotions to be made on the recommendations of CSB. Moreover,

following illegalities, anomalies and scope for manipulation and bias will arise:

a. Much greater reliance and importance would then be attached to the individual assessments

of Reporting and Countersigning Officers writing the officers’ PERs and TERs. This will

clearly be more subjective as these are personal opinions whereas proceedings of the CSB,

due to its wide composition and senior level participation, makes it far more objective in its

deliberations. If at all a member is biased in favour of or against an officer under

consideration for promotion, the open deliberations and frank discussion at the CSB

neutralizes such bias.

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 23

b. On the other hand, there is no open or frank discussion by the Reporting or Countersigning

Officers who individually put their personal opinions on the PERs/TERs which are not open

to discussion with anyone else.

c. Such a scenario leading to greater element of subjectivity and risk of personal bias would be

against the spirit of judgments rendered by the superior Courts in Irum Adnan (2012 PLC

(CS) 1355), Orya Maqbool supra and Liakat Ali Chugtai (PLD 2013 Lahore 413).

d. It will also promote a culture of sycophancy where officers would leave no stone unturned to

appease their Reporting and Countersigning Officers to have favourable PERs/TERs.

e. Moreover, it is a ground reality that due to cultural and social reasons, the quality of PERs

and TERs cannot always be trusted and the possibility of being influenced and of under or

over-estimation of an officer cannot be ruled out.

f. Also the PERs and TERs are basically an indicator of the officer’s performance at posts in

previous pay scales which do not involve the same type of middle and senior management

work and qualities as required for senior positions in BPS-20 and 21. Then, the same lot of

officers will subsequently also be considered for promotion to the most senior management

level of BPS-22. Hence, the CSB’s assessment comprising BPS-22 officers employing their

collective wisdom and knowledge, must prevail over the PERs and TERs penned down by

Reporting and Countersigning Officers.

g. Lastly, the column “Fitness for promotion” in the PERs is only an assessment by the

Reporting Officer which makes an individual eligible to be considered for promotion by CSB

and cannot be treated at par with CSB’s assessment. Whereas recommendation for promotion

by CSB is based on a collective assessment by all members of the CSB employing their

combined knowledge and wisdom.

25. It is further argued that there has been neither specific instance nor allegation

of mala fides cited or leveled by the petitioners against any member of the CSB nor has

there been any material placed before this Hon’ble Court to substantiate their claims, if any,

of prejudice caused to the petitioners. In the absence of any specific instances of mala fides

alleged by petitioners, the allegations of mala fides are worth no consideration by this

Hon’ble Court. That Promotion of a civil servant is an administrative order based purely on

performance and conduct of a civil servant. Normally, these two aspects are not measured

by any set criteria but are normally known by other colleagues, senior and junior officers.

This reputation reaches every corner of the civil service. That the reasons for deferment or

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 24

supersession are not required to be recorded on the Objective Assessment Form by the CSB.

These are recorded in the minutes only. There is no specific requirement to always have any

tangible material, such as intelligence reports etc., presented before the CSB for allocation

of the discretionary marks by the CSB. Usually, the CSB has before it the panel proforma

which includes the record of the officer, length of service, PERs and TERs, postings held in

present scale, and information regarding disciplinary proceedings (if any). In the instant

cases, the CSB members used their collective wisdom and acquired knowledge for

allocation of discretionary marks in each case.

26. It is maintained that the nature of a selection process for promotion to

selection posts is inherently different from disciplinary proceedings. The following are the

points in this regard:

a. Disciplinary proceedings wherein element of stigma is involved mandatorily requires

following due process as elaborated in the Government Servants (Efficiency &

Discipline) Rules, 1973. This involves detailed proceedings, including confronting the

accused officer with the incriminating material, a meaningful opportunity of defense,

examining and cross-examining witnesses, etc. A certain standard of proof must be met

before the accused officer could be penalized and stigmatized. This also includes the

right of appeal.

b. On the other hand, for selection posts, comparatively more meritorious officers are

selected and appointed based on the collective wisdom of the CSB and the fact that a

senior officer is not promoted having been found not fit for promotion due to lesser

comparative merit does not attach any stigma. This also applies to an officer not

promoted due to a negative general reputation or perception about him or his integrity,

which simply results in leaving him out of competition for promotion. The proceedings

of CSB are confidential and its assessment is expressed in numerical terms without any

specifics about the lower merit or negative perception or reputation of the officer being

made public. As such, based on general reputation and perception, it does not

necessarily require any tangible material, nor the need for confronting the same to the

officer concerned. This is also why no right of appeal exists against a determination of

fitness as the legislature presumed that being found unfit for promotion does not

involve any stigma. The Courts should defer to the wisdom of the legislature in keeping

the sanctity of CSB’s proceedings and not to lightly disturb the CSB’s

recommendations and findings of fitness or otherwise regarding an officer.

27. That the last meeting of CSB which was held in May, 2015 was initially

scheduled to be held in January, 2015. Due to restraining orders from the Hon’ble Lahore

High Court, the same could not be convened. Had the meeting of CSB been held in January,

2015, the PERs of 2013 would have been considered because PERs for the year 2014 i.e. the

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 25

last calendar year were not due as per PER policy. Further, as per august Supreme Court’s

decision dated 22.04.2015 in Aftab Maneka’s Case (Civil Petition No.41/2015 and Civil

Petition No.66/2015), the CSB had to make recommendations for promotion within a period

of 30 days and competent authority had to be finalized within 15 days of the submissions of

the recommendations. Keeping in view of the said judgment, the competent authority, in

relaxation of the policy, allowed considering the PERs up to year 2013 during the CSB

proceedings of May, 2015. As per policy/practice an officer can be deferred or superseded

by the CSB if he is beneficiary of the NRO, convicted by any court of law or formal

disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him under E&D Rules, 1973. However,

as per NAB’s letter dated 17.04.2005, all civil servants whose cases are pending with NAB

can be considered for postings/promotions on merit in order to make them fair and just

chance for their progression. Accordingly, Mr. Mazhar-ul-Haq Kaka Khel, a PSP officer has

been promoted to BS-20 by the CSB despite the fact that an enquiry against him was

pending before the NAB. As per Establishment Division’s record, no information regarding

plea bargaining of the respondent No. 13 i.e. Mr. Mazhar-ul-Haq KaKaKhel in W.P. No.

1565/2015 titled “Waqar Haider Vs. FOP etc.” with NAB was available before and during

the proceedings of the CSB in May 2015. The CSB during its proceedings held in May,

2015 has not allocated 18 marks out of 15 discretionary marks to any of the promoted

officer. It is, however, pertinent to mention that the CSB can allocate more than 15 marks to

a certain officer who is exempted from mandatory training(s) because in that case the CSB

has up to 30 discretionary marks as per Promotion Policy, 2007 amended from time to time.

28. Further argued and denied that Dr. Lubna Naeem was awarded full fifteen

(15) discretionary marks by the CSB. Dr. Lubna Naeem, an officer of an Attached

Department of Capital Administrative Development Division was awarded fifteen (15)

marks by the CSB out of 30 marks as she was exempted from mandatory trainings in line

with the Promotion Policy, 2007 amended from time to time.

29. Learned counsels for private respondents M/s Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen,

Muhammad Umair Baloch, Imran Fazal, Misbah Gulnar Sharif, Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry,

Khalid Waheed Khan, Ambreen Khan, Muhammad Asif Gujjar, Ijaz Anwar, Rai Azhar

Iqbal Kharal, Barrister Jawad Niazi and Sajid Ijaz Hotiana and Ms. Naveeda Noor,

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 26

Advocates adopted the arguments advanced by learned Additional Attorney General and

Standing Counsel.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the

record.

30. The learned Additional Attorney General has raised the objection of

maintainability of all these Writ Petitions by arguing that in view of the bar contained in

article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The learned Additional

Attorney General has referred to the case of Mr. Khalid Mehmood Watoo Vs Government of

Pakistan and others (1998-SCMR-2280). Conversely the learned counsel representing the

petitioners have contended that the writ petitions are competent as the determination of

eligibility and fitness of a government servant for the purpose of promotion is not related to

the terms and conditions of his service. Having considered the respective contentions pro

and contra to the question of maintainability of the writ petitions, it is observed that as per

section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973, the Federal Service Tribunal has no

jurisdiction on the controversy of the determination of fitness and suitability of a person for

a job and for promotion. In the case of Mrs. Irum Adnan and others Vs Federation of

Pakistan and others reported as 2012-PLC (CS)-1355 this court observed as under:-

(“First aspect, which requires determination is that, whether, this court has the

jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter and issue appropriate writ, in the light of the

prayer made by the petitioners and objection raised by the respondents.

For convenience, section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunal Act is being provided hereunder:-

“No appeal shall lie to a tribunal against an order or decision of a department

authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or

whole a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade”

Similarly proviso to sub section 2 of section 22 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 provides as

under:-

“Provided that no representation shall lie on matters relating to the determination

of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post

or grade”

Moreover second proviso to Rule 4 (1) of Civil Servants Appeal Rules, 1977 states as

herein below:-

“Provided further that no appeal or review shall lie on matters relating to

determination of a fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted

to a higher post or grade”

As is evident from above provision, no remedy by way of filing appeal etc is

provided to Civil Servant against determination of fitness, therefore, this aspect itself is a

ground to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. In this regard guidance has

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 27

been sort from the judgments reported as PLD-1989-SC-26, 2000 PSC-599, PLD-2003-SC-

175, 2001-PLC (CS)-878, 2003-PLC-(CS)-503, LHC & order dated 20.5.2011 passed by

learned single Bench of Islamabad High Court in writ petition No.1160 of 2011.

In this view of the matter it is held that writ petition on the issue brought before

the court is maintainable”).

31. The above quoted view expressed by this court in the case of “Mrs. Irum

Adnan” is supported by the judgment of Hon’ ble Lahore High Court with the title of Liaqat

Ali Chugtai VS Federation of Pakistan and others reported as PLD-2013-Lahore-413. The

above referred decisions of this court and the Hon’ ble Lahore High Court were also referred

with approval in the reported judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case

of Orya Maqbool Abbasi and Federation of Pakistan and others 2014-SCMR-817.

32. The basic question involved in all these petitions is the question of

determination of fitness and the same has been done by the CSB and subsequent

conversion of supersession into deferment carries no material difference and in such

circumstances the petitions are maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution in

view of the clear bar as contained in Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973.

The said provision of the Act ibid is reproduced below for purpose of easement:-

Section 4 (1) (b) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973: “4(1)(b)……no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision

of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a

person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a

higher grade”

33. In an unreported judgment dated 27.04.2015 passed in C.P.NO.472/2014

titled Umar Farooq Vs. Govt. of Pakistan, through Secretary Establishment Division,

Islamabad whereby the question of deferment was finally authoritatively determined by

the Full Bench of the apex court in the following terms:

“3. Having considered the above circumstances and also having heard

learned counsel for both sides we are clear that there was no good reason

for not recommending the promotion of the petitioner Umar Farooq. It is

to be noted that the High Court has not taken the above circumstances

into account but has proceeded on the premise that “the promotion to a

selection post is not a right, but a civil servant can be considered for the

posts. “This point of view was also advanced before us on behalf of the

government but in our view it is not valid because the decision of the

HPSB cannot be arbitrary or without reason. In the present case the

HPSB not only acted arbitrarily but also unfairly and contrary to the

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 28

merit, earned by the petitioner in his service. The petitioner was only

seeking promotion to BS-22 and was not asking for posting to any specific

government office. There was no justification for deferring the petitioner.

4. In the forgoing circumstances, the impugned judgment rendered by

the High Court is set aside and so is the order of the HPSB deferring the

petitioner. Since the petitioner quite evidently was fit and qualified for

promotion and since he has already retired after attaining the age of

superannuation, the issue remains one of pensionary benefits only. We are

not in any doubt that he was entitled to promotion in BS-22. We therefore,

order that he shall stand promoted w.e.f. 28.12.2012 i.e. The date on

which the respondent Mr. Munir Qureshi, 11 years the petitioner’s junior,

was promoted to BS-22. The petition is converted into appeal and is

allowed accordingly.”

34. The learned counsel for the petitioners have heavily placed reliance on the

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in the cases reported as 2010

SCMR 1301, 2014 SCMR 817, 2012 PLC(CS) 1355, 2012 PLC(CS)1062 and

2006PLC(CS)564 with particular reference to a judgment of the Division Bench of the

Lahore High Court, Lahore reported as 2003 PLC (CS) 503 titled Muhammad Zafeer

Abbasi Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others and also referred to another unreported

order dated 01.04.2015 passed in Civil Appeal No.66 of 2009 dealing with the question

of deferment/ supersession firstly decided by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in favour of

the petitioners and the Government filed the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of Pakistan. The operative part of the order in para-2 and 3 is reproduced below for

ready reference:

“2. However, since this is the second round of litigation and the

respondent had retired on 23.7.2009 after superannuation, we have no desire

to remand the case to the High Court once again. We had required the

Federation to show us the reasons why the respondent was not promoted. The

relevant record has been produced before us. The ACRs signed and

countersigned by the responsible senior Police Officers have stated that the

respondent is a good officer who is also upright and honest. Nevertheless the

CSB has variously reported that he does not enjoy a good reputation. When

we questioned the learned DAG to let us know the basis of this opinion

formed by the CSB, he was not in a position to do so although the entire

record of the Establishment Division relating to the respondent officer has

been produced before us. The same is also being returned to the

Establishment Division.

3. Since there appears to be no apparent basis for the opinion formed by

the CSB resulting in deferment / supersession of the respondent, we find that

the opinion of CSB is unjustified. We may also state that the Establishment

Division needs to look into this matter to improve its functioning so those

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 29

senior offices of the Government who have spent more than 30 years in

government service are not dealt with arbitrarily. If indeed the respondent

did not enjoy a good reputation, perhaps this should have been documented

or in the alternate those reporting officers should have been questioned who

have stated that the respondent was a very diligent, competent, honest and

good officer”.

In view of the above discussion, there is left no hesitation that all these writ

petitions are maintainable as in all these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the

criteria on the basis of which the fitness of the petitioners for promotion is determined by the

HPSB & CSB.

35. Before dilating upon the other issues involved in these petitions I find it

appropriate to provide particulars of all the petitioners in a chart as under:-


SR.

NO. TITLE

WRIT PETITION

NUMBER

SUPER-

SESSION

DEFER-

MENT

COMPOSITION OF CSB

CHALLANGED

1

1.

Syed Ijaz Hussain (IRS) WP No.1269/15 To call for a special report for at least

six months of the officer to be placed

before the board in the next meeting.

2. Zafar Iqbal Qadir (PAS) WP No.1607/15 Case is subjudice before the Hon’ble

Islamabad High Court as well as

performance on merit.


SR.

NO TITLE

WRIT

PETITION

NUMBER

SUPER-

SESSION

DEFER-

MENT COMPOSITION OF CSB CHALLANGED

1 Akbar Aleem

Shamim(PAS)

WP - 1359/15 To observe his work related performance for a

period of (06) six months.

2 Khawaja Adnan

Zahir(IRS)

WP - 1383/15 To further watch his work related performance for a

period of (01) one year.

3 Qaiser Majeed Malik

(PAS) WP – 1401/15

No reason provided.

PER

TRAINING

Award of marks

by CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

72.15 C 5 77.15

4 Badar Zaman (PSP) WP – 1415/15 Was not considered by the board.

5 Malik Tahir Sarfraz

(Pak Administrative

Service)

WP – 1418/15 To further watch his work related performance for a


6 Imran Tariq (PCS) WP – 1426/15 To further watch his work related performance for a


7 Khawaja Umar

Mehadi(PCS)



8

Ghani-ur-Rehman

Wazir (PSP) WP - 1440/15

No reason provided.

PER

TRAINING

Award of marks

by CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

72.71 C 05 77.71

9 Farooq Amin Qureshi

(PSP)



10 Syed Zulifqar Ali Shah

Kazmi(PCS)



W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 30

11 Aftab Ahmed Cheema

(PSP)

WP - 1454/15 Disciplinary proceedings under Govt. Servant (E &

D) Rules,1973.

12

Tariq Hayat Khan

(PAS) WP - 1462/15

No reason provided.

PER

TRAINING

Award of marks

by CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

71.09 C 05 76.09

13 Shah Muhammad

Jamal (FSP)

WP - 1472/15

No reason provided.

PER

TRAINING

Award of marks

by CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

73.72 C 05 78.72

14 Shoaib Bashir Khan (P

& D & R) WP – 1484/15

Marks awarded by the board were below the

prescribed score of 75.

15 Sheraz Mirza (IRS) WP – 1496/15 To further watch his work related performance for a


16 Kamran Fazal (PSP) WP – 1503/15 Watch of work performance in all aspects including

integrity for a period of one year.

17 Mohammad Rafiq

Khan (Pak Railways)

WP – 1504/15



PER

TRAINING

Award of marks

by CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

65.95 C 5 70.95

18 Syed Imtiaz Altaf

(PSP)

WP – 1509/15

No reason provided.

PER

TRAINING

Award of marks

by CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

71.08 C 05 76.08

19 Rana Muhammad

Luqman (IRS)

WP – 1511/15 Watch of work performance in all aspects including


20 Ghulam Sawar Jamali

(PSP)



21 Rana Muhammad

Iqbal Khan(PSP)



22 Muhamad Shafique

(PSP)



23 Muhammad Akram

Khan (BOI)



24 GulabZamir WP –

1961/2015

The board after examining the record of the case

did not recommend the official for grant of

Performa promotion.

25 Ghulam Hyder

Khaskheli (EOE)



26 Ejaz Asad Rasul

(Ministry L J & HR)


integrity for a period of 06 months.


SR.

NO TITLE

WRIT

PETITION

NUMBER

SUPER-

SESSION

DEFER-

MENT COMPOSITION OF CSB CHALLANGED

1 Riaz Hussain

(Secretariat Group) WP - 1416/15

PER of the officer for the year 2010 to 2013 are

disputed. To get the disputed PERs from the

right reporting officer.

2 Zahid Rashid (AGP) WP - 1429/15

No reason provided.

PER Award of marks by TOTAL

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 31

TRAIN-

ING

CSB SCORE

Category Marks

71.7 C 4 75.7

3 Suresh Mal (Ministry

Housing & Works) WP - 1432/15

Seat Kept Reserved for the officer on the super-

annotation of the officer on the vacancy of Chief

Engineer BS-20.

4 Munir Khan khiliji(Pak

Railways) WP - 1446/15



PER

TRAIN-

ING

Award of marks by

CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

57.58 B 10 67.58

5 Muhammad Shoaib

(PSP) WP - 1453/15

Watch of work performance in all aspects

including integrity for a period of one year.

6 Mushtaq Ahmed

Qureishi(Railways) WP - 1464/15



PER

TRAIN

-ING

Award of marks by

CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

54.36 B 10 64.36

7 Babar Sikandar (IB) WP - 1466/15 Watch of work performance in all aspects

including integrity for a period of one year

8 Lubna Ayub & 05

others (IRS) WP - 1501/15


including integrity for a period of one year.

9 Younas Ali Khan (Pak

Railways) WP - 1505/15

To further watch his work related performance

for a period of (01) one year.

10 S Asif Mateen Zaidi

(Pak Railways) WP - 1506/15

No reason provided.

PER

TRAIN

-ING

Award of marks by

CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

67.43 C 5 72.43

11

Samin Ullah Khan

Gandapur(Pak

Railways)

WP - 1507/15

No reason provided.

PER

TRAIN

-ING

Award of marks by

CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

70.73 C 5 75.73

12 Abid Mehmood Khan

(PakRailways) WP - 1518/15



13 Muhammad Farooq

Azam (PSP) WP - 1523/15



14

Muhamamd Zahid

Mahmood (Ministry of

Water and Power)

WP - 1524/15

The item was not considered by the board due to

the unavailability of the Secretary, Ministry of

Water and Power.

15 Hafiz Zafar Ali Malik

(PS) WP - 1542/15



16

Tariq Mehmood Javaid

& 04 others

(Secretariat Group)

WP - 1561/15 For incomplete PER record [2008, 2009, 2010,

2011, 2012, 2013 (pt)]

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 32

17

Muhammad Yaseen

Shar & 03 others

(Secretariat Group)

WP - 1562/15 Officer should serve in federal secretariat for

one year for want of assessment in own cadre.

18 Waqar Haider (PSP) WP - 1565/15



PER

TRAIN-

ING

Award of marks by

CSB

TOTAL

SCORE

Category Marks

60.44 C 4 64.44

19 Mukthar Ahmed Baig

(DefenceMnistry) WP - 1566/15



20 Asif Samad(Ministry of

Defence)

WP – 1568/

2015



21 Haroon Khan (CAAD) WP - 1588/15 To further watch his work related performance


22 Shahid Hussain

(Ministry of Defence) WP -1589/15

Official not considered for want of vacancy.

23 Sohail Akthar(Housing

& Works)

WP - 1657/15 Mandatory training not done.

24 Fasihuddin(PSP) WP - 1756/15 Disciplinary proceedings initiated by NAB

Peshawar against the officer on allegation of

corruption defined in section 9(a) of NAO 99.

25 Muhammad Arif

(information &

broadcasting)

WP - 2033/15 To further watch his work related performance


26 Humayun Iqbal Shami

(Staff welfare)

WP - 2095/15 To further watch his work related performance


27 Muhammad Ayub

Minhas (Intelligence

Bureau)

WP – 3656/ 14

and

WP – 1612/15



PER

TRAININ

G

Award of marks

by CSB

TOTAL

SCORE Category Marks

59.38 C 5 64.38

28 Muhammad Ayub

Minhas (Intelligence

Bureau)

WP – 1855/ 13



PER

TRAININ

G

Award of marks

by CSB

TOTAL

SCORE Category Marks

58.63 B 7 65.63

It is the case of the respondents themselves that new Policy/Formula has been

introduced in the light of judgment passed by this Court, in the case titled “Mrs. Iram Adnan

and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others” reported as 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1355,

therefore, propriety demands that practice/policy prevailing prior to above mentioned

judgment may be provided and this aspect is to be scrutinized as to whether new

formula/policy is in consonance with the judgment supra or not? In this regard, the stance of

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 33

the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat (Establishment Division) conveyed to

Members of CSB, is being reproduced herein below:-

“The Board was apprised that Ms. Iram Adnan and Mr. Khawaja Adnan Zaheer officers

of Inland Revenue Service filed a writ petition No.3483/2011 in the Islamabad High Court

against their supersession for promotion from BS-19 to BS-20 on the recommendations

made by the CSB in its meeting held on 31-10-2011. The Honorable Islamabad High

Court in its judgment dated 20-03-2012 read with order dated 13-02-2014 in writ petition

No. 3483/2011, filed by Iram Adnan and others inter-alia directed as under:-

“In this view of matter, instant writ petitions are allowed, formula of award of 15 marks on

the discretion of CSB is declared as illegal, superficial, unconstitutional, against the

dictums of Court of Apex, non-transparent, result of adamant approach, whimsical, sham,

unprecedented, infringement to constitutional guarantees and principles of natural justice,

therefore, same is set aside. The respondent Establishment Division is directed to

implement the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Civil Petition Nos.1083,

58 to 60, 443 and 444 of 2010 in its letter and spirit and restructure the formula of award

of 15 marks in accordance with guidelines provided therein. The authorities concerned are

directed to hold de-novo proceedings of Central Selection Board and on the basis of

restructured formula all the superseded and deferred civil servants must be considered

again, as their supersessions/deferment on the basis of existed formula applied by CSB is

totally illegal. However, civil servants who earned the promotion, without superseding

other civil servants shall continue to hold their present posts and positions.”

36. The Board was accordingly informed that in compliance of order of

Islamabad High Court the officers who were deferred/superseded by the CSB in its meeting

held in 2010 and 2011 will be reconsidered on the revised objective assessment criteria and

separate minutes will be issued for the de-novo consideration.

37. The members of Board were briefed among others on the legal framework of

promotion, which is reproduced as under:-

a) In the terms of Section 9 of Civil Servants Act, 1973, promotion is to be made to a

higher post for the time being reserved under the rules for departmental

promotion in the service or cadre to which a Civil Servant belongs.

b) BS-21 posts are selection posts, selections to which are required to be made on

merit in terms of Section 9 of Civil Servants Act, 1973.

c) Detailed guidelines for the CSB were contained in the Revised Promotion Policy

2007 read with earlier policy of 1985.

d) Posts in BS-20 are also selection posts. Field offices are generally headed by the

officers in this scale. It was therefore, essential that in addition to the relevance of

experience, these officers must also have a sufficient variety and width of

experience.

e) An officer on training abroad or posting abroad in our embassies can be

considered. His/her promotion, however, to be actualized upon return, in case

such positions do not exist over there.

f) An officer on posting with Foreign Government, International Organization or

private agencies shall be considered upon return and after earning PER for 12

complete months. In case the officer has earned part PER for less than 12 months

in a calendar year then a special report for the period of deficiency earned in next

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 34

calendar year shall be taken into account to complete the requirement of twelve

months for this purpose. The requirement to earn PER in relation to period of

deputation is 3 months for period upto one year, 6 months for 1-3 years and 12

months for 3-5 years.

g) An officer superseded earlier shall be considered after earning PER for one full

year. In case the officer has earner part PER for less than 12 months in a

calendar year then a special report for the period of deficiency earner in next

calendar year shall be taken into account to complete the requirement of twelve

months for this purpose.

h) In case of non-earning of PER of complete one year for no fault of the officer

(i.e. remained OSD, on mandatory/non-mandatory training and awaiting

posting/actualization of promotion) then special report for the period of deficiency

earned in next year shall be taken into account to complete 12 months.

i) As per policy, the marks allocated for qualification of PERs, Training Evaluation

and Evaluation by CSB Members are as under:-

Quantification of PERs 70 Marks

Present Grade 60% 42 Marks

Previous Grade(s) 40% 28 Marks

Marks of Training Evaluation Reports 15 Marks

For promotion to BS-21 9 Marks

NDU/NMC Training (60% weightage)

NIPA Training 6 Marks

(40% weightage)

Evaluation by CSB 15 Marks

j) Doctors, Teachers, Professors and Research Scientists were exempted from

mandatory training. In their cases, CSB will award marks out of 30 marks.

k) Officers having attained age of 58 years were exempted from mandatory training.

I) In case of officers exempted from training, their marks for exemption from

training were added to the marks to be awarded by CSB.

m) 22 and 17 years service in BS-17 and above was required for promotion to BS-21

and BS-20, respectively, provided that where initial appointment of a person not

being a person in Government service, take place in a post in BPS-18, 19 or 20,

the length of service shall be reduced as prescribed.

n) Conditions for deferment

i) Having not undergone the prescribed training.

ii) Non submission of Part-I of PERs by the concerned officer to his

Reporting Officer in respect of his service in the present grade and the

preceding grade.

iii) Incomplete record or where the Board wants to watch the performance

of the officer further or for any reason to be recorded in writing.

iv) Pendency of disciplinary or departmental proceedings.

v) Deputation abroad to a foreign government, private organization or

international agency.

vi) Seniority being subjudice.

o) In terms of Rule 7(A)(2) of Civil Servants (APT) Rules, 1973 notwithstanding

anything contained in FR 17, the officer who expires or superannuates after the

recommendations of the CSB and before issuing of the notification, shall stand

exempted from assumption of the charge of the higher post.

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 35

38. The Board was informed that in the light of Supreme Court’s judgment in

C.P. No.22/2013, the Prime Minister was pleased to approve new Objective Assessment

Form (Annex-III) for CSB in 2014. The new form has focused separately on professional

competence and integrity/general reputation. In the Form, new attributes namely

professional/expertise and functional ability & leadership, have been added in addition to

already existing attributes of quality & output of work, variety and relevance of experience,

personality profile and conduct, discipline & behavior. Whereas the attribute of Top

Management Potential has been substituted by Estimated Potential for middle/higher

management. The attribute of integrity/general reputation/perception has been separately

given 5 (five) marks (1/3rd weightage) with the condition that an officer under consideration,

getting less than three (3) out of five (5) under integrity/general reputation parameter may be

deferred or superseded by the CSB at their discretion but with reason to be recorded in

writing.

39. According to revised Objective/Assessment Form three categories of officers

A, B and C were introduced and incorporated in the Revised Promotion Policy, 2007, which

are as under:-

Category Range of Marks

A 11-15

B 06-10

C 00-05

In case of exemption from mandatory training, the range of marks is as under:-

Category Range of Marks

21 Marks

(NIPA/SMC Exempted)

24 Marks

(NMC/NDU Exempted)

30 Marks

(Both NMC/NDU & NIPA

SMC Exempted)

A 15-21 17-24 21-30

B 08-10 09-16 11-20

C 00-07 00-08 00-10

40. Further, in case of selection posts, an officer meeting the aggregate threshold

shall also be superseded if CSB places him/her in category-C, as per amendments introduced

in para 4(b) of Revised Promotion Policy.

41. The Board was apprised that the last meeting of CSB was held in February

2014. The recommendations of CSB were accordingly submitted to the Prime Minister for

approval being the appointing authority. However, the Prime Minister referred back the

cases of approximately 89 officers to the CSB for reconsideration by keeping the vacancies

reserved for them. Aggrieved of such decision of the Prime Minister, some referred back

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 36

officers approached various Courts of law. The Honorable Courts of law in some cases inter-

alia directed for issuing of promotion notification of the referred back officers, from the

dates their other colleagues were notified for promotion. Establishment Division filed CPLA

against such orders in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The Honorable Supreme Court

reserved the judgment in the CPLA filed by the Division which was announced on 22-04-

2015. The Honorable Supreme Court in its order dated 22-04-2015 inter-alia directed as

under:-

“For the foregoing reasons, both the petitions are converted into appeal and allowed. The

impugned judgments of the High Courts are set-aside and the Writ Petitions filed by the

respondents are dismissed. The Board shall re-examine the case of the respondents on the

basis of the criteria already set for determining the fitness or otherwise of the civil servants

for promotion without, in any way, being influenced by the observation made in the

summary for the return of the recommendations to the Board. Since the promotion of the

respondents have been pending for the last so many years. Let the Board make its

recommendations within a period of 30 days and competent authority shall finalize their

case within 15 days of the submission of the recommendations.”

42. The Board was informed that the PERs for 2014 have become due for

consideration of promotion to BS-21 and BS-20 in terms of para 2.37 of AGPE, 2004. As

the Board was being convened in compliance of orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and

deadline of 30 days, the Prime Minister was pleased to approve to consider the PER record

of the officers up to 2013 in the CSB.

43. The CSB was also informed that in terms of guidelines for submission of

proposals for CSB issued by Establishment Division in 1974, 1998 and lastly in July 2010,

furnishing complete information/documents and calculation of score of the officers with

accuracy, was the responsibility of the sponsoring Division. Further it was the responsibility

of the Departmental Representatives who attended the meeting of CSB to apprise the Board,

whether or not any departmental proceedings were pending against the officers whose cases

were being considered by the Board.

44. The Revised Promotion Policy, 2007 provides that if seniority of a civil

servant is subjudice, he/she may be deferred for promotion. The issues were discussed at

length and CSB was of the view that if seniority of a Civil Servant has only been challenged

in a Court of law and no restraining order issued by the Court is in field then the officer will

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 37

be considered according to existing approved seniority list. The Board therefore, decided to

consider such cases for promotion where the seniority is only subjudice but no restraining

order in field. Board also noted that the Establishment Division’s O.M. No.1/3/2007-CP-II,

dated 19th January, 2012 states that reasons for supersession/deferments must be conveyed

to the officers recommended as such. It was, therefore, decided by the Board that the

officers recommended for deferment/supersession may be informed by respective service

administration about reasons for their supersession/deferment as already provided in the

Promotion Policy. The Administrative Divisions/ Departments would be responsible not

only to convey them the decision of the Board, after approval of the competent authority, to

the officer concerned but also make sure that the report of the prescribed period may be

placed next year before CSB.

45. That the CSB agreed to reiterate/adopt the following principles across the

board for the sake of added transparency and objectivity:-

a) As per policy, more weightage will be given to the performance of the officer in

his recent scale.

b) As informed by Establishment Division the PERs of all officers will be considered

until 31-12-2013.

c) In the cases where special reports are required, the same will be entertained as

per policy.

d) Officers on probation shall not be considered for promotion to the next higher

scale.

e) The officers shall be placed in any one of the three categories (A, B, C) by the

Board keeping in view the parameters/attributes as given in the new Objective

Assessment Form and shall be assigned marks accordingly.

g) Missing PERs up to an accumulated length of one year will be considered for

recommendations for promotion, subject to satisfactory completion of record.

h) Subjudice cases of seniority will warrant deferment only if there is a restraining

order by the courts.

i) Retired officers will be considered on court orders only and they would be

recommended to FR-17 Committee for consideration, if find fit.

j) All discussion in the meeting will be non-attributable except when there is a

dissent and the dissenting member wants it to be recorded.

46. After providing the above perspective, it would be advantageous to provide

the legal framework for promotion and its procedure provided in the Civil Servants Act,

1973 and the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The

provision of Section 9 of Civil Servant Act, 1973 read with rules 7 , 8 and 8-A of Civil

Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 are reproduced below for ease

of reference:-

Section 9. “Promotion (1) A civil servant possessing such minimum qualifications as

may be prescribed shall be eligible for promotion to a [higher] post for the time being

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 38

reserved under the rules for departmental promotion in the service or cadre to which

he belongs .provided that the posts of-

(a) Additional Secretary and Senior Joint Secretary may, in the public

interest, be filled by promotion from amongst officers of regularly

constituted Occupational Groups and services holding, on regular basis,

posts in Basic Pay Scale 20; and

(b) Secretary may, in the public interest, be filled by promotion from amongst

officers of regularly constituted Occupational Groups and services

holding, on regular basis, posts in Basic Pay Scale 21;

In such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.]

(2) A post referred to in sub-section (1) may either be a selection post or a

non-selection post to which promotions shall be made as may be prescribed:-

(a) in the case of a selection post, on the basis of selection on merit; and

(b) in the case of a non-selection post, on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness’

[(3) Promotion to posts in basic pay scales 20 and 21 and equivalent shall be made

on the recommendations of a Selection Board which shall be headed by the

Chairman, Federal Public Service Commission].”

Rules 7 , 8 & 8A of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) the

Rules, 1973.

7. “Promotions and transfer to posts in basic pay scale 2 to 18 and equivalent

shall be made on the recommendation of the appropriate Departmental Promotion

Committee and promotions and transfer to posts in basic pay scales 19 to 21 and

equivalent shall be made on recommendations of the Central Selection Board”

8. Only such persons as possess the qualification and meet the conditions

laid down for the purpose of promotion or transfer to a post shall be considered by

the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Central Selection Board as the

case may be.

8-A. No promotion on regular basis shall be made to posts in basic pay scales

(17) and equivalent unless the officer concerned has completed such minimum

length of service, attended such training and passed such departmental

examination, as may be prescribed from time to time.

The above statutory provisions of law and rules are the basic foundations for

consideration of promotion of civil servants. The posts are divided into Non-

Selection posts [promotion based on seniority cum fitness basis]and Selection

Posts[meant on merit].

47. The Federal Government felt the need to meet functional requirements duly

supplemented by comprehensive and consistent set of policy guidelines for Central Selection

Board (CSB)/Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and consequently framed its first

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 39

promotion policy on 31st October, 1982 for Federal Government employees regulating their

promotions in BS-18 to BS-21 with specified criteria laid down therein after the approval of

the President of Pakistan under the Law. The salient features as enunciated in the original

Promotion Policy inter alia provided basic eligibility such as length of service, training

courses, experience, blood counts in terms of quantification score of Performance

Evaluation Reports for selection posts in BS-19, 20 and 21. Under the aforesaid policy there

were no marks with the Central Selection Board nor any mark for mandatory training

course. Normally the civil servants eligible for promotion and meeting with the

quantification score were considered and recommended by the CSB/DPC and promoted.

However, by the end of 1999 after the change of civil Government with that of Military

Government, the new un-codified policy commonly known as “Best of the Best” was

introduced with the field check reports from Agencies. The civil servants aggrieved of the

new methodology adopted by the CSB assailed the same in the superior courts and the said

policy did not stand to judicial scrutiny. Even with this background the then Cabinet

Secretary moved a Summary for Prime Minister on the point of agency reports which is

reproduced in extenso:-

“GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

CABIENT SECRETARIAT

CABINET DIVISION

SUMMARY FOR THE PRIME MININTER.

“Subject: USE OF INTELLIGENCE REPORTS IN CSB

PROCEEDINGS

A deleterious practice has emerged in the proceedings of Central Selection

Board whereby reports from Intelligence Agencies are used by its Chair to

supersede officers on behalf of CSB. This practice is an innovation not

supported by the law or rules on the subject.

2. It is against the Constitution, law and rules to use Intelligence

Reports which, if adverse to an officer’s interest, are not conveyed to an

affected officer nor is the principle of ““Audi-Alteram-Partem” applied. This

practice is at variance with Supreme Court’s established judgments. In fact,

these reports are not even provided to members of CSB. It is merely

announced that the Intelligence Agencies have not cleared such and such

officer.

3. In a number cases, the Intelligence Reports have turned out to be

palpably wrong. The cases of Mr. Abdul Rauf Khan (DMG) and Mr. Akbar

Hoti (PSP) spring readily to mind. By the time the record is set right,

incalculable harm has been caused to the affected officers.

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 40

4. The Prime Minister is requested to intervene against this

unconstitutional and illegal practice. If deemed appropriate, this proposition

may be got verified at the level of Law Division as well as the Attorney

General of Pakistan so that two authoritative opinions are available to the

Prime Minister.

5. Cabinet Division proposes that if Intelligence Reports have to be

made mandatory for decision ranking, a proper system needs to be instituted.

This will require issuance of proper instructions under APT Rules, 1973. The

gist of adverse reports should be served upon a concerned officer. A

committee of 3 senior most Federal Secretaries and representative of

concerned agencies may then take a collective decision, or sent its

recommendations to the Prime Minister for a decision.

6. Cabinet Division submits the proposal in para 5 for consideration

and orders of the Prime Minister so that the system in vogue which is

patently irregular, and invidiously demeaning for civil servants, may be

suitably rationalized.

Prime Minister’s Secretariat,

(Mr.Khalid Saeed, Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister),Ibd.

Cab.Div.1/1/2006-PS/CS dated 30th October,2006|.

48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing with such issue of

civil servant in C.A.No.295 of 2001 passed order dated 26.04.2001 which is as follows:-

“We have considered this aspect of the case. Prime facie, we are of the view

that there is force in the contention raised by Mr. Samdani, ASC inasmuch

as, the intelligence reports which were never conveyed to the respondent

cannot form the basis for withholding the promotion of the respondent. In this

view of the matter, we vacate the interim order with direction that respondent

be dealt with in accordance with law. Promotion of the respondent would

however be subject to the fate of this petition.

49. The Federal Government in October, 2007 issued a Revised Promotion

Policy and also made changes mutatis-mutandis in the basic promotion policy of 1982 and

all posts in BPS-19 have been taken out of the category of selection posts while posts in BS-

20 and BS-21 continued to be selection posts. The quantification score for promotion to BS-

18 to BS-21 under the said Revised Policy (in ESTACODE Edition 2007 Volume-I) was

determined as under:

“DEVELOPMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE EFFICIENCY INDEX FOR

PROMOTION / DEFERMENT/ SUPERSESSION:-

a) The minimum threshold of marks for promotion to various scales

shall be as per following table:

Basics Pay

Scale

Aggregate marks of

Efficiency Index

BPS-18 50

BPS-19 60

BPS-20 70

BPS-21 75

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 41

b) The Selection Board shall recommend the officers on the panel

securing requisite % and above in the efficiency index for promotion

unless deferred (in order of seniority, depending upon the number of

vacancies).

No officer, meeting the aggregate threshold, shall be superseded. The senior

officers, if not recommended for promotion on account of low threshold, shall

be superseded whereas the junior officers, if not recommended for promotion

for want of vacancies, shall be deemed not to have been considered.”

Minimum length of service for eligibility for promotion to posts in Grade 20

& 21 are 17 years service in Grade-17 and above and 22 years service in

Grade-17 and above respectively.

50. The quantification of Performance Evaluation Reports / Training Evaluation

Reports and CSB Evaluation under the Revised Promotion Policy of 2007 is as follows:

QUANTIFICATION OF PERS, TRAINING EVALUATION AND CSB

EVALUATION.

For the purpose of consideration by the CSB, the PERs will be quantified

according to the formula given in the addendum to the existing Promotion

Policy (Sl.No.162 & 63) with the following modifications:-

a) ………………..

b) The following marks will be allocated for quantification of PERs,

Training Evaluation Report and CSB evaluation.

S.No. Factor Marks

1. Quantification of PERs relating to

present grade and previous

grade(s) @ 60% : 40%

70%

2. Training Evaluation reports in

ratio of 60% : 40%

15%

3. Evaluation by CSB 15%

Total 100%

TRAINING EVALUATION REPROTS.

a) A total fifteen (15) marks shall be allocated to the Training

Evaluation Reports (Nine marks @ 60% for the training in the

existing BPS and Six marks @ 40% in the preceding BPS). For

example, in the case of promotion to BPS-21 posts, marks for

NMC/NDC training will be awarded out of nine marks and marks for

NIPA training will be awarded out of six marks.

51. The civil servants aggrieved under the Revised Promotion Policy filed writ

petition against the order of their supersession/deferment in the Islamabad High Court,

Islamabad and this Court decided the writ petition on 20.03.2012 also dealing with the

award of 15 marks by the CSB. While considering the cases of promotion of officers in BS-

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 42

20 and BS-21 this Court also dealt with the question of integrity of the civil servants in

paras 6, 9, 11, 12, 13 & 14 and the same are reproduced as follows:-

“6. Award of 15 marks by CSB resulting into grant of promotion or

denial to the same brings noticeable proportion of litigation before the High

Courts, Service Tribunals and ultimately apex court. Incidentally, mechanism

in which these marks are awarded and the manner in which this formula

being applied has received displeasure from the superior courts and

observations about same have already been made, through different

pronouncement.

9. In my humble estimation issue before this court is not merely

supersession of civil servants rather more serious to that, and it is

disobedience of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, frustrating the

directions contained therein and malicious act to undermine the efforts of

building the culture of rule of law. It is constitutional obligation of the High

Court to enforce the law declared by apex court through different

pronouncements. It really is beyond comprehension that executive

functionaries would become insensitive about any judgment containing

direction to them, by ignoring it or keeping aside the same. Any court of law

does not render the judgment for academic discussion but with the object

and purpose to undo the wrong and enforce the rights.

11. Unfortunately, trend of showing defiance, disobedience and non-

compliance of the orders of the superior court is on increase and this is the

appropriate time where High Court must become more vigilant and enforce

its authority for the implementation of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and persons on the helm of affairs who through cryptic approach are

found in ridiculing the orders, must be dealt with strictly in accordance with

law.

12. I have no hesitation in observing that after clear direction by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, through judgment supra all the proceedings of

Central Selection Board, in violation of observations/directions of apex

court, have no sanctity whatsoever. The executive functionaries are expected

to act in aid of order passed by the superior courts and implement the same

in the spirit in which they are passed. It is common observation that when

some decision by executive functionaries is taken in violation of any judgment

/ order of the superior courts, beneficiaries of such order show arrogance

and deprived show their dismay about the judicial system.

13. It is simply unbelievable that civil servants having stinking reputation

of involvement in the corrupt practices would be kept in service with a license

to pollute the entire system. When it comes to taking action against such

element, no evidence or substance is found to warrant action against them.

Now, question arises that how can those civil servants be denied befit of

promotion simply for the reason that some of the members of CSB had

personal knowledge or in their estimation o0fficer in involved in corrupt

practices? It is amazing to note that, no officer against whom presumption of

corruption is made confronted with such suppositions and even interviewed

to seek explanation about any impression lurking in the minds of learned

members of CSB. One reason of not confronting could definitely be, want of

incriminating material and other may be source of personal information,

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 43

which in the understanding of law is just hearsay. Admittedly at the time of

CSB, no disciplinary proceedings against superseded civil servants were

pending, on the ground of charges of corruption. Allegations of corruption

against any citizen of the country are serious but when such type of

allegations are leveled against civil servants and that too of top or middle

management, repercussion of such allegations are found more than serious

and grave in nature. Such allegations against highly placed civil servant

besides bringing stigma to his career disrupt entire fiber of his family,

professional and social life and at times proves fatal to his life. In the era of

awareness, rule of law and judicial activism, it is unexpected of the executive

functionaries,, to play with the careers of civil servant on hypothesis,

surmises and with subjective approach. The superior courts of the country

have jealously safeguarded the rights of citizens and always disapproved,

actions taken with malafide intention, ulterior motives and nefarious designs.

Subjective formula being followed is like declaring civil servants as “good

guy: and “bad guy” which is in direct violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 9, 10-A,

14, 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

14. In this view of the matter instant writ petitions are allowed, formula

of award of 15 marks on the discretion of CSB is declared as illegal,

superficial, unconstitutional, against the dictum of court of apex, non-

transparent, result of adamant approach, whimsical, sham unprecedented,

infringement to constitutional guarantees and principles of natural justice,

therefore, same is set aside. The respondent Establishment Division is

directed to implement the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, delivered in

Civil Petitions Nos. 1083, 58 to 60, 442 and 444 of 2010, in its letter and

spirit and restructure the formula of award of 15 marks, in accordance with

guidelines provided therein”

52. The same ratio decidendi of the afore cited judgment in Writ Petition

No.3483 of 2011 [titled Mrs. Iram Adnan v. Federation of Pakistan and others reported as

2012 PLC(CS)1355 came in the case of Liaquat Chughtai from Hon’ ble Lahore High Court

reported as PLD-2013 Lahore-413 and both were quoted with approval in the case of Oriya

Maqbool Abbasi [2014 SCMR 817]. The Establishment Division vide O.M dated 12th

October, 2012 issued revision of promotion policy-restructuring of criteria for award of

marks reserved for Central Selection Board and according to said formula , the CSB shall

place the officer in any of the following categories and assign appropriate marks

accordingly:

Sl. No. Category Range of Marks

1. Category-A = 11-15

2. Category-B = 06-10

3. Category-C = 00-05

53. Under para 2(1) (b) further clarifies that an officer meeting the aggregate

threshold shall also be superseded if CSB places the civil servant in Category –C. Learned

counsel for the petitioners laid much emphasis that this is somewhat an overriding effect not

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 44

warranted under the judgments of Mrs. Iram Adnan and Liaquat Chughtai through which a

well balanced and structured criteria was intended to come in existence so as to award of

any possibility of arbitrary and unfair treatment to the civil servant contrary to his merit

earned in his service. They have drawn the attention of the court to the aforesaid O.M. and

the proforma of objective assessment by CSB as annexures I & II with the comments filed in

the writ petitions and duly relied upon by the respondent Establishment Division could, in

no way, cause interminable difficulties in way of career progression of the civil servants

particularly by using 5 marks as a tool to place in Category-C on integrity/general

reputation/perception on the basis of PERs/TERs/Opinion of the Board bypassing

unblemished service record including the PERs containing column on Integrity both general

and Intellectual [Honest and straightforward ] duly assessed by different Reporting Officers

and Countersigning Officers closely watching the work and conduct spanning over decade

and decade.

54. Vide office Memorandum dated 12th October 2012, Government of Pakistan,

Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division issued changes made in the policies/guidelines.

For the sake of convenience, said office Memorandum is reproduced hereunder:-

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject: REVISION OF PROMOTION POLICY – RESTRUCTURING OF

CRITERIA FOR AWARD OF MARKS RESERVED FOR CENTRAL

SELECTION BOARD

The undersigned is directed to say that the instructions contained in the Promotion

Policy, 1982 and the Guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committees/ Central Selection

Boards issued under Establishment Division’s d.o. letter No.10(3)/81-CP-I(Pt), dated 31-10-

1982, read with Revised Promotion Policy, contained in this Division’s O.M. No.1/3/2007-CP-II,

dated 24th October, 2007, amended from time to time; have been reviewed on the basis of

recommendations by a Committee on the subject.

2. With approval of the Competent Authority, the following changes are hereby made in

the said policies/guidelines:-

a. The existing parameters/attributes namely 1) Quality & Output of Work 2) Variety

and Relevance of Experience 3) Top Management Potential contained in the

Guidelines of CSB attached with Promotion Policy, 1982 read with Revised

Promotion Policy, 2007 shall continue to apply for consideration of civil servants

for promotion, deferment and supersession.

b. New Parameters/attributes namely 1) Integrity/General Reputation/ Perception 2)

Personality Profile and 3) Conduct, discipline & behavior are added in the said

Guidelines attached with 1982 Policy.

c. “Quality & Output of Work” and “Integrity” contained in the Guidelines attached

with 1982 Policy as well as relevant boxes in the PER Forms, deleted in 2003, are

revised. Changes in the PER forms being issued separately.

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 45

d. A new Objective Assessment Form (Annexture-A) for assessment of each officer on

the panel by CSB against the attributes namely 1) Quality & Output of Work 2)

Integrity/General Reputation/Perception 3) Variety and Relevance of Experience 4)

Top Management Potential 5) Personality Profile and 6) Conduct, discipline &

behavior is hereby introduced.

e. The said Objective Assessment Form shall be placed before the CSB alongwith

panel proforma of every officer for his/her objective evaluation by the CSB. The

Board shall assess each officer on the panel on the basis of said

parameters/attributes. After assessment/evaluation, the CSB shall place the officer

in any of the following categories and assign appropriate marks accordingly:-

S.No. Category Range of Marks

1. Category A 11 to 15

2. Category B 06 to 10

3. Category C 00 to 05

f. Sub Para-4 of Revised Promotion Policy, 2007 provides that the officers securing

requisite percentage of marks viz: 70 to 75 will be promotion to BS-20 & 21

respectively. The said para is modified as under:-

(b) The Selection Board shall recommend the officers on the panel securing

requisite % and above in the efficiency index for promotion unless deferred

(in order of seniority, depending upon the number of vacancies). An officer

meeting the aggregate threshold shall also be superseded if CSB placed him

in Category-C. The senior officers, if not recommended for promotion on

account of low threshold, shall be superseded whereas the junior officers if

not recommend for promotion for want of vacancies shall be deemed not to

have been considered.”

g. The aforementioned criteria for award of 15 marks by the CSB shall henceforth be

treated as part of the Guidelines for Selection Board attached with Promotion

Policy, 1982.

3. The Promotion Policy, 1982 read with Revised Promotion Policy, 2007 as well as the

Guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committees/Central Selection Boards attached with the

1982 Policy shall be deemed to have been modified to be above extent.

4. Instructions contained in the Promotion Policy, 1982 read with Revised Promotion

Policy, 2007, as amended from time to time, and Guidelines for Departmental Promotion

Committees/Central Selection Boards attached with the 1982 Policy in so far as not inconsistent

with the provisions of this OM shall remain in force.

5. Subject to the provisions of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer)

Rules, 1973 and such other rules made under the Civil Servant Act, 1973, the Civil Servants

shall be considered for promotion to higher post in accordance with the Promotion Policy issued

by the Federal Government for the time being in force. The amendment in the Civil Servants

(Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1973 shall be notified separately.

6. The Ministries/Divisions are requested to bring this decision to the notice of all attached

Departments/Sub-ordinate Officers under their administrative control for compliance.

The proforma for objective assessment by the Central Selection Board is also

reproduced as under:-

Government of Pakistan

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 46

Ministry of____________________

OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT BY CENTRAL SELECTION BOARD

Officer’s Name: ______________ Seniority No._______________

Group/Service/Cadre: _________ Present Scale:_______________

S. No. Parameters/Attributes Total

Marks

Marks

Assigned

1 Output of work and quality of work

10

2 Variety & Relevance of Experience

Secretariat/Field Postings, Federal/Provincial Government

Postings, Leadership/Routine Postings, Deputation/Foreign

Postings.

3 Professional Expertise

4 Personality Profile

(As known to the Board Members)

5 Conduct, Discipline and Behaviour

(Observation by RO/CO during last 05 years OR as known

to the Board Members)

6 Functional Ability and Leadership

7 Estimated Potential for Middle/Higher Management

Based on PERs and Training Evaluation Reports,

Management Skills, Ability to take decisions, Strategic

Thinking, Leadership Qualities, Drive for Results and

Accomplishments in BPS-19 and 20 in policy formulation &

implementation

8 Integrity/General Reputation/Perception

On the basis of PERs/TERs/Opinion of the Board* (emphasize provided)

5

9 Total Marks by CSB 15

10 Overall Category

Cat-A Cat-B Cat-C

(11-15) (06-10) (00-05)

* An officer under consideration, getting less than 3 out of five under this parameter may be deferred or

superseded by the CSB at their discretion but with reasons to be recorded in writing (underlining is mine)

55. The Award of 15 marks under the new Policy with overriding effect of 5

marks on face of it is like empowering CSB with the sword of veto. For example, if some

civil servant earned 75 marks from his PRs, SMC, etc. those marks will reduce to naught, if

learned Members of CSB are not persuaded to award him 3 marks out of 5 marks. This

power is not only arbitrary, fanciful, but against all norms of justice, fair play and

transparency. The Superior Courts of the country have held time and again that on the basis

of dubious formula and whimsical approach accrued valuable rights cannot be frustrated.

56. The case of the petitioner Syed Ijaz Hussain in WP No. 1269/2015 & Zafar

Iqbal Qadar in WP No. 1607/2015 is that they have been serving in BS-21; that they possess

all the codal formalities to be considered and promoted to the post of BS-22 but the HPSB

deferred their promotion without any lawful justification. It is observed that in the case of

Syed Ijaz Hussain, HPSB has deferred his case for promotion with the observation that his

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 47

special report for at least 6 months be placed before the board in the next meeting and in the

case of Zafar Iqbal Qadar, he is deferred with the observation that his case is subjudice

before Hon’ ble Islamabad High Court as well as performance on merit. It is observed that in

the case of Tariq Aziz ud Din and others reported as 2010-SCMR-1301, the issue before the

august Supreme Court of Pakistan was with regard to promotion from BS-21 to BS-22 and

deferment of some of the civil servants. In that case the august Supreme Court of Pakistan

observed as under:-

“Before parting with the judgment, we may observe that good governance is largely

dependent upon the upright, honest and strong bureaucracy particularly in written

constitution wherein important role of implementation has been assigned to the bureaucracy.

Civil Service is the backbone of our administration. The purity of administration to a large

extent depends upon the purity of the services. Such purity can be obtained only if the

promotions are made on merit in accordance with law and constitution, without favoritism

or nepotism. It is time tested recognized fact that institution is destroyed if

promotion/appointments are made in violation of law. It will, in the ultimate result ,paralyze

automatically. The manner in which the instant promotions in the civil services have been

made, may tend to adversely affect the existence of this organ. Honestly, efficiency and

incorruptibility are the sterling qualities in all fields of life including the administration and

services. These criteria ought to have been followed in the instant case. Fifty four persons

were promoted in complete disregard of the law causing anger, anguish, acrimony,

dissatisfaction and diffidence in ranks of services which is likely to destroy the service

structure. No doubts petitioner/affectee officers had no right to be promoted yet in

accordance with section 9 of the CSA-1973, they were at least, entitle to be considered for

promotion. The right contemplated in section 9 Supra is neither illusionary nor a perfunctory

ritual and withholding of promotion of a officer is a major penalty in accordance with civil

servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1973, therefore, consideration of an officer for

promotion is to be based not only on the relevant law and the rules but also to be based on

some tangible material relating to merit and eligibility which can be lawfully taken note of.

According to article 4 of the Constitution the word “law” is of wider import and in itself

mandatorily cast the duty upon every public functionary to act in the matter justly, fairly and

without arbitrariness”.

57. In the same judgment the august Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the

Rules rescinded on 4th April, 1998 should be re-enacted. In view of the said advice of the

august Supreme Court of Pakistan, the establishment division framed the rules for promotion

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 48

to BS-22 which are “Promotion to the post of Secretary BS-22 and Equivalent Rules-2010”.

After the framing of the said rules, now the promotions from BS-21 to BS-22 can only be

made within the frame work of these rules and if an employee is to be deferred or ignored,

that ought to be within the mandate of these rules. Perusal of these rules provides that the

HPSB would consider the cases of civil servants serving in BS-21 for promotion to BS-22 if

they meet the following conditions:-

a. 25 year in BS-17 and above

b. At least two years in post in BS-21.

c. At least three very good reports during the last six years.

d. No penalty under government servant (Efficiency and Discipline )Rules,

1973 or under the removal from service (Special Power) Ordinance,

2000.

e. Possess sufficient verity or experience.

58. The available material along with the comments of respondents reveals that

both the petitioners possessed the mandatory conditions provided in Rule 4 of Promotion to

the Post of Secretary BS-22 and Equivalent Rules-2010 to be considered for promotion.

There is no cavil to the contentions of the learned Additional Attorney General that no civil

servant including the petitioners has any vested legal right to be promoted. Yet the rules of

Promotion to the Post of Secretary BS-22 and Equivalent Rules-2010 provides a vested legal

right to a civil servant serving in BS-21 and possessing the conditions provided in Rule-4 to

be considered for promotion in accordance with law. The discretion is still vested with the

authority i.e. HPSB to recommend or defer the promotions but this discretion is subject to

the principles settled through the rules and provided in the verdicts of the Constitutional

courts. The reasons for the deferment of both the petitioners have been already quoted and

now it is to be determined that whether the authority i.e. HPSB has exercised discretion in

accordance with law or this exercise has resulted in discrimination to the petitioners. As per

civil servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 withholding of promotion is described

as a major penalty and this penalty can only be inflicted by proceedings against a civil

servant under the said rules. In the case of Tariq-Aziz ud Din the august Supreme Court of

Pakistan with reference to the discretion observed as under:-

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 49

“The above principles are being consistently, reiterated in the cases of

Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi Versus Pakistan

Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi PLD-1991-SC-14, Director

Food, N.W.F.P and another Versus Messers Madina Flour and General Mills

(Pvt) Ltd and 18 others (PLD-2001-SC—1), Chief Secretary Punjab and

others Versus Abdul RaoofDasti (2006 SCMR-1876), Abdul Wahab and

another Vs Secretary Government of Balochistan and another (2009 SCMR-

1354) and Delhi Transport Corporation Versus D.T.C Mazdoor Congress and

others (AIR-1991-SC-101). In the case of Abdul Wahab (ibid), this court

while dealing with the subject of structuring of discretion observed as

follows:-

“Discretionary power conferred on government should be exercised reasonably

and subject to existence of essential conditions, required for exercise of such

powers within the scope of law. All judicial quasi, Judicial and administrative

authorities while exercising mandatory or discretionary jurisdiction must follow

the rule of fair exercise of power in a reasonable manner and must ensure

dispensation of justice in the spirit of law. Seven instruments that are the most

useful in structuring of discretionary power are open plans, open policy

statement, open rules, open findings, open reason, open precedents and fair

informal procedure. Power to exercise discretion would not authorize such

authorities to act arbitrarily, discriminately and mala fidely. They have to act

without any ulterior motive”).

59. The above principles of structuring of discretion actually has been derived

from the concept of rule of law which, inter alia, emphasize that action must be based on

fair, open and just consideration to decide the matters more particularly when such powers

are to be exercised on discretion. In other words, the arbitrariness in any manner is to be

avoided to ensure that the action based on discretion is fair and transparent. The Indian

Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation (ibid), while examining a

proposition of law, in view of the facts of the case mentioned therein concerning the

removal of an employee under Regulation 9 (b), where opportunity of hearing was not to be

provided before taking action, made the following observation:-

“Any action taken without any modicum of reasonable procedure and prior opportunity

always generates an unquenchable feeling that unfair treatment was meted out to the

aggrieved employee. To prevent miscarriage of justice or to arrest a nursing grievance that

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 50

arbitrary, whimsical or capricious action was taken behind the back of an employee without

opportunity, the law must provide a fair, just and reasonable procedure as is eligible in a

given circumstances as adumbrated in proviso to Art.311(2) of the Constitution. If an

individual action is taken as per the procedure on its own facts its legality may be tested. But

it would be no justification to confer power with discretion on any authority without any

procedure which would not meet the test of justness, fairness and reasonableness envisaged

under Art-14& 21 of the Constitution. In this context it is important to emphasize that the

absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our whole

constitutional system is based. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when

conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within defined limits. The rule of law

from this point of view means that decision should be made by the application of known

principles and rules and, in general, such decisions should be predictable and the citizen

should know where he is. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule it is

unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision taken in accordance with

rule of law. (See Dicey---- “Law of the constitution”-----10thEdn, Douglas, J in United States

Vs Wunderlich, (1951) 342 US 98, “when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion of

some ruler----Where discretion is absolute, man has always suffered”. It is in this sense that

the rule of law may be said to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield

stated it in classic terms in the case of John Wilkes “means should discretion be guided by

law. It must be governed by rule, not by humor; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful.”

As followed in this court in S .Jaisinghani VS Union of India,” (1967)2SCR-703: (AIR-1967-

SC-1427)”.

60. In the case in hand learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the

competent authority has exercised discretion justly and fairly following the recognized

principles but it is observed that the findings of the authority i.e. HPSB are self explanatory

that the decision of deferment of the petitioners has not been made in accordance with law

as in the case of petitioner Syed Ijaz Hussain, it is mentioned that his special report for at

least six months be placed before the Board in the next meeting without providing that

whether his dossier was not sufficient to arrive at some solid conclusion justifying his

promotion or his aspersion. It is not provided that his performance was not up to the mark or

that he does not possess the requisite length of service or that he managed to obtain PERs or

that he was proceeded under the disciplinary rules or that he was lacking the requisite

experience. There is no mention in the observation of the authority that why juniors to the

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 51

petitioner were given preference over him. There is absolutely no mention that the authority

had provided the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to satisfy the reservation of the

authority before inflicting the major penalty of withholding promotion. The impugned

recommendation of HPSB neither fulfills the requirements of section 24-A of General

Clauses Act nor the Constitution and the Rules governing the issue. Similar is the case of

petitioner Zafar Iqbal Qadar as in his case the authority observed that case was subjudice

before this court as well as performance on merit. It is not provided that on what specific

issue the petitioner did not perform as per the requirement of the job and how he managed to

secure very good PERs.

61. Looked from whatever angle, it is evident that the authority has not applied

its mind while exercising its discretion to promote the officers serving in BS-21 to BS-22

and it has resulted in pick and choose in the exercise of discretion. Having observed that the

petitioners were eligible for promotion, yet not promoted and juniors promoted, it had

militated against the command of article 4 of the Constitution according to which it is an

inalienable right of individual to be dealt in accordance with law and the law on the subject

is section 9 of CSA 1973 and Rules of promotion to BS-22 of 2010. It is further observed

that article 25 of the constitution guarantees equal treatment of the citizens. This protection

can only be denied in peculiar circumstances of the cases on the basis of reasonable

classification founded on intelligible differentiation, which distinguishes persons or things

clubbed together from those who have been left out. However, the available material reveals

that the authority/HPSB has made no effort to bring the cases of promoted officers under

any reasonable classification so as to distinguish their cases from those of the petitioners.

The crux of the discussion is that, the order of the aspersion of the petitioners is not

sustainable.

62. As far as the cases of the petitioners who have been deferred to be promoted

from BS-20 to BS-21 and from BS-19 to BS-20, it is observed that federal system of

government was introduced in the subcontinent through government of India Act, 1935 and

the spirit of that Act was kept in the Constitution of 1973. The concept of all Pakistan

Service was introduced in 1935 vide section 263. Perusal of this section reveals that the

independence of provinces was not curtailed by the Federal Government and in pursuance of

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 52

an agreement between the Provinces and Federation all Pakistan Services were created to be

regulated under the CSB (composition and Cadre) Rules 1954. The constitutional protection

to the civil servants was withdrawn first time when the Constitution of 1973 was framed and

in terms of article 240 it was provided that the terms and conditions of Civil Servant shall be

determined by an act of Parliament and as such civil servants Act 1973 was promulgated to

regulate the service of the Federal Government Employees. Section 9 of CSA 1973 deals

with promotion of Civil Servants up to BS-21 & the procedure has been laid in the

Appointment, Promotion & Transfer Rules, 1973. The establishment division issued the

instructions with respect to the promotion policy and the guidelines for Departmental

Promotion Committees/Central Selection Boards vide DO letter No. 10(3)/81-CP-i(PT)

dated 31.10.1982. Subsequently establishment division revised the said policy vide office

memorandum dated 24.10.2007 and the quantification score for promotion to BS-18 to BS-

21 under the said revised policy was determined.

63. The moot point in the listed cases is the award of five marks and

consequently the placement in categories A, B & C by the Central Selection Board

keeping in view the integrity of the officers under consideration for promotion to the

next higher post in BS-20 and BS-21 before CSB and whether the O.M. dated 12th

October, 2012 was issued strictly in accordance with the spirit of the judgment rendered

by this Court in the case of Mrs. Iram Adnan or not.

64. The judgment of this Court in the case of Mrs. Iram Adnan followed by

another judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore in the case of Liaquat Ali Chughtai

leave no manner of doubt regarding reconsideration of cases of the Civil Servants for

promotion to higher post in a just and fair manner by restructuring the criteria of award

of 15 marks by the CSB. The restructured criteria by the Establishment Division vide

O.M. dated 12.10.2012 has been minutely scrutinized in the light of the law laid down

in the aforesaid judgments which were also quoted with approval by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Oriya Maqbool Abbasi. The earlier mode of

award of 15 marks was stuck down, being totally discretionary and arbitrary. The

restructured formula vide Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2012 giving more discretion

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 53

without tangible material on point of integrity of the civil servants while awarding 5

crucial marks and consequently placement in categories A, B and C is clearly against

the essence of the aforesaid judgments and therefore, the same is not tenable and cannot

be allowed to block the promotions of the civil servants by arbitrary placement in

category “C” without recording any reason or referring any tangible material. I have also

noticed that the CSB in certain cases without looking into the record available before it,

recommended for deferment for one year when the said civil servant was about to retire

on attaining the age of superannuation and in another case as discussed in para supra

reflects that the officer was recommended for deferment on the sole ground of not

having done the mandatory training course which he was otherwise exempted under the

promotion policy being above the age of 58 years. In other cases the officers despite

earning outstanding reports were recommended for deferment to watch their

performance for one year. These are the detailed reasons for the short order passed on

27th July, 2015 which reads as follows:-

“For the reasons to be recorded later on instant writ petition as well as connected

writ petitions Nos.1359, 1383, 1401, 1415, 1416, 1418, 1426, 1429, 1432, 1439, 1440, 1446,

1447, 1451, 1453, 1454, 1462, 1464, 1466, 1472, 1484, 1496, 1501, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506,

1507, 1509, 1511, 1518, 1523, 1524, 1540, 1542, 1561, 1562, 1564, 1565, 1566, 1568, 1583,

1588, 1589, 1607, 1612, 1657, 1756, 1955, 1961, 2033, 2058, 2095, 2137 of 2015 3656 of

2014 and 1855 of 2013 are allowed by declaring that formula of award of 15 marks at the

disposal of CSB with overriding effect of 05 marks and thereby placing the civil servants in

categories A, B & C is against the dictums laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Orya Maqbool Abbasi reported as 2014 SCMR 817 and judgment passed by this

Court in Iram Adnan’s case reported as 2012 PLC (CS) 1355, on the basis of which

purportedly new policy was framed. The discretion of award of marks by the CSB cannot

being the ACRs/TERs evaluation into naught and CSB can only grant marks out of 15 at its

discretion and marks of quantification to be added in making recommendations for

promotion. The entire process carried out by CSB on the basis of formula introduced

through Policy of 2012 resulting into deferment / supersession of petitioners is declared as

illegal, without jurisdiction, in violation of law laid down by the Superior Courts and

offensive to the accrued valuable rights of civil servants.

65. In this view of the matter, the Establishment Division is directed to

reframe the formula by taking away the overriding effect of the marks to be awarded by

CSB and categorization into A, B & C and place the cases before CSB in the light of the

judgments mentioned above, within one month. The assessment shall be made on the

W.P. No. 1269 of 2015 54

basis of entire performance and in case any tangible material asking question about

integrity of civil servant is available, he may be confronted with the same and then any

opinion of deferment or supersession may be made but not on the basis of hypothesis

and reputation in air. The cases of employees of BS-21 for promotion to BS-22 be

placed before the High Powered Selection Board within one month.

(SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI)

JUDGE

“Waqar Ahmed”

Approved for Reporting.

JUDGMENT SHEET. IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, … Draft WP 1269-2015.pdf · IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH...

Documents

Transcript of JUDGMENT SHEET. IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, … Draft WP 1269-2015.pdf · IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH...