| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2577 2017 SLD 2577 2017 SCMR 969 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 2109 to 2139 of 2016 and Civil PetitionNo. 516 of 2017 and C.M.As. Nos. 5210, 7645 of 2016 in C.A.2109 of 2016, C.M.A. No. 6094/2016 in C.A. 2136/2016,decision and hearing Date : 13-03-2017
PRESENT: MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
Afnan Karim Kundi, Additional A.G. and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As.2109-2118/16). Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A. 2119/16). Muhammad
Civil Appeals Nos. 2109 to 2139 of 2016 and Civil PetitionNo. 516 of 2017 and C.M.As. Nos. 5210, 7645 of 2016 in C.A.2109 of 2016, C.M.A. No. 6094/2016 in C.A. 2136/2016,decision and hearing Date : 13-03-2017
PRESENT: MAQBOOL BAQAR, JUSTICE, IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE
Afnan Karim Kundi, Additional A.G. and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.As.2109-2118/16). Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants (in C.A. 2119/16). Muhammad
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS
VS
DR. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND OTHERS
Law: Civil Servants Act, 1973
Section: 9
Law: Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973
Section: 7,8,8-A
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--- ----S. 9---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Rr. 7, 8 & 8-A---Promotion criteria---Award of 15 marks at the disposal of Central Selection Board ("Board") with 5 overriding discretionary marks and placing of civil servants in three different categories for promotion---Recommendations of the Board for deferment/supersession of civil servants---Personal whims and unfettered discretion of Members of the Board---Procedural unfairness and lack of due process---Promotion policy adopted by the Board instead of providing any evaluation structure, left it open for the Board to choose either the service dossier of the officer concerned as a source material for the evaluation of the various essential and crucial attributes of the officer, or just to rely upon the personal knowledge of its members for the said purpose---In relation to the candidate's personality profile it was left exclusively to be evaluated on the basis of the Members' knowledge, without any reference to any record---For an officer to avoid deferment or supersession, it was made essential for a candidate to obtain at least 3 out of the 5 discretionary marks in respect of "integrity/general reputation/perception"---Anomalous situation was created where an officer who may have otherwise, achieved the required threshold on the basis of evaluation of his service record, may still be superseded by the Board on the basis of the opinion harboured or nurtured by a few of its Members, and instead less deserving officer may be recommended, which could result in the degeneration of the civil service, and dissatisfaction and despondency amongst its cadres---Entire promotion process being flawed for want of a well thought out structured objective criteria, and lacking in due process, gave way to arbitrariness, ambiguity and a whimsical approach, inasmuch as the Board drifted from reliance upon the service dossier of the officer, and instead placed reliance on undefined personal opinion, and that too without qualifying it with the necessity of being based on any tangible evidence/material--- Case record showed that some of the petitioners/civil…