| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 3135 2018 SLD 3135 2018 PLC 907 |
Intra-Court Appeals Nos. 368, 371 to 377, 379 to 389, 391 to 394, 398 to 411, 413 to 433 of 2015, decided on 08-06-2016. Dates of hearing: 11th, 27th, 28th January, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 10th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 29th, February, 1st, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 21st, 28th March and 04-04-2016.
Afnan Karim Kundi, Learned Additional Attorney-General for Appellants (in I.C.As.Nos.368, 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 391, 392, 393, 394, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432 and 433 of 2015). Atta Ullah Hakim Kundi for Appellants (in I.C.As. Nos.390 and 412 of 2015). Asif Khan for Appellants (in I.C.A.No.449/2015). Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, and Ch. Asghar Ali for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As.Nos.368, 379, 382, 390, 400, 403, 406, 408, 409, 412, 417, 425, 427, 429 and 430 of 2015). Muhammad Aftab Alam Rana for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As.Nos.391 and 392 of 2015). Muhammad Shabbir Bhutta for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As.Nos.368, 372 and 385 of 2015). Barrister Masroor Shah for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As. Nos.376, 377, 383, 387, 415 and 433 of 2015). Ahsan Hameed Dogar for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As. Nos.405, 413 and 419 of 2015). Ghulam Rasool Bhatti for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As. Nos.380, 407 and 424 of 2015). Sardar Taimoor Aslam for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As. Nos.381 and 411 of 2015). Fayyaz Ahmed Jandran for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As. Nos.398, 414 and 426 of 2015). Tariq Mehmood for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.A.No.399/2015). Saeed Khursheed Ahmed for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As.Nos.368, 375 and 402 of 2015), Aziz Nishtar and Hassan Mehmood for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As.Nos.373 and 386 of 2015). Mansoor Beg for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As.Nos.388 and 423 of 2015). Moazzam Ali for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.A.No.374/2015). Asif Khan for
Respondent No.3 (in I.C.A.No.371/2015). Ahmad Junaid and Zaafir Khan for
Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As.Nos.371 and 449 of 2015). Rai Azhar Iqbal Kharal for M/o Railway (in I.C.As. Nos.393, 407 and 424 of 2015). Mohsin Raza Gondal, Deputy Director, for
Respondents Nos.3 and 4. Raja Zubair Hussain Jarral for
Respondent No.3/Ministry of Defense (in I.C.A.No.374/2015). Mrs. Naziran Malik for
Respondent (in I.C.As. Nos.368 and 427 of 2015). Hafiz Mazher Maiken for
Respondent No.5 (in I.C.A. No.424/2015).
SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
VS
DR. MUHAMMAD ARIF AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--- ----Ss. 9 & 25---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Rr.7, 8 & 8-A---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Civil service---Promotion---Recommendations of Central Selection Board---Supersession/deferment---Objective criteria for promotion---Office memorandum---Nature---Audi alteram partem, principle of----Applicability---Opinion of members of Central Selection Board---Scope---Adverse remarks in ACR, communication of---Discretionary power---Employees assailed, under constitutional jurisdiction of High Court their supersession which was accepted and Establishment Division was directed to reframe the formula by taking away the overriding effect of marks to be awarded by the Central Selection Board and categorization into A, B & C---Single Judge of High Court directed that assessment should be made on the basis of entire performance and in case any tangible material questioning the integrity of civil servant was available then he might be confronted with the same and thereafter an opinion with regard to deferment or supersession should be made but not on the basis of "hypothesis and reputation in air"---Validity---Office memorandum could not be considered as 'rules' framed under S.25 of Civil Servants Act, 1973---Office memorandum setting out the promotion policy or guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committee could not be termed as primary or delegated legislation---Office memorandum was not clear as to how many out of five marks were to be attributed to the officer's PER, how many to his TER and how many to the 'Opinion of the Board'---Said memorandum was vague and ambiguous and had given unfettered and unbridled discretion to the Central Selection Board---Nothing was on record as to how an officer was assessed by the Central Selection Board with regard to his integrity---Reasons made by the Central Selection Board did not refer any material which caused to conclude that officer lacked honesty---Officer against whom there was nothing adverse in his PER and TER could not without sufficient tangible and convincing material be relegated…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492