Shahid Zaman Vs Federation of Pakistan through Secty. Cabinat Division Govt. of Pakistan

JUDGMENT SHEET

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P. No.8691-P/2025 Shahid Zaman Vs.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others Date of Hearing 15.04.2026 Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Ali Gohar Durrani, Advocate. Respondent(s) by: Mr. Akbar Yousaf Khalil, DAG alongwith Mr. Zubair Khan, Assistant Director, Federal Public Service Commission, Pre-Office, Peshawar.

JUDGMENT

IJAZ ANWAR, J. In the instant writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner is aggrieved of the letter dated 07th August, 2025 issued by the Section Officer (CP- VI), Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad, whereby, he was conveyed that his case for promotion to BS-21 was considered by the Central Selection Board and recommended supersession and the recommendations have been approved by the Prime Minister in terms of Rule 5(3) of the Civil Servants Promotion (BS-18 to BS-21) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Rules, 2019”) read

with Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973.

2.Comments were called from the respondents who furnished the same, wherein, they opposed the issuance of desired writ asked for by the petitioner.

3.Arguments heard and record perused.

4.Petitioner is a Pakistan Administrative Services (BS-20) officer (formerly the District Management Group-DMG). Being in promotion zone, his name was placed before the Central Selection Board for consideration. The Central Selection Board considered his case of promotion from BS-20 to BS-21 in its meetings held from 11th to 14th March, 2025 and ordered his supersession. The order of supersession was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter No.3/1/2025-CP-VI dated 07.08.2025. The Central Selection Board has the following observations in his case.

“The Board deliberated upon the service profile, TERs/PERs, and general perception of the officer regarding professional conduct, integrity and other attributes mentioned in the Objective Assessment Form. The Board noted that the officer’s promotion potential in the TERs of his SMC and NMC was assessed as ‘Good’ against the better available options of ‘Very Good’ and ‘Outstanding’.

The Board also noted that in the PERs of the officer for the period 09.09.2021 to 31.12.2021 and

01.01.2022 to 08.05.2022 he was assessed as ‘B’ in the columns of “integrity” and “Quality of Work”. The board deliberated in detail about the officer’s performance considering input from the departmental representative, members of the board and additional information available. A consensus emerged that while the officer has acceptable service record in terms of PERs and TERs, he is reputed to be an officer of average competence and questionable financial integrity which is not in sync with his quantified performance. The departmental representative commented that he does not exert himself in the performance of his assigned tasks, has a lackadaisical approach and enjoys mixed reputation. The Board expressed reservation that officers of such average competence and questionable integrity if promoted would not be able to serve the public interest in a befitting manner. The Board referred to Rule 14(1) of the Civil Servants Promotion (BS-18 to BS-21) Rules, 2019 which defines posts in BS-19 to BS-21 as selection posts and Section 9(2) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which provides that selection to such posts shall be made on the basis of merit. The Board also noted that the Supreme Court of Pakistan vide its judgment dated 11-10-2002 in Civil Appeal No. 1599 to 1606/1999 had observed that “no civil servant can ask for promotion as a right”. Further the Board also considered the IHC judgment in “Sikandar Hayat Maken etc. vs Federation of Pakistan” case wherein the court upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent authority over the

question of fitness or suitability for promotion. This judgment mentioned that the competent authority had to ensure that civil servants who are competent, suitable and known for their integrity are appointed through promotion against “Selection Posts”. After detailed deliberations covering all the aspect of the officer’s performance the Board arrived at the conclusion that Mr.

Shahid Zaman Mohmand is an officer with repute of average competence and peccable integrity and is not fit to discharge responsibilities that he will have to shoulder if promoted. The Board awarded 09 marks to Mr. Shahid Zaman Mohmand; thereby placing him in Category-C. The officer failed to meet the required threshold of 75 marks. The Board, therefore, recommended the officer for supersession in line with Rule 8(a) of the Civil Servants Promotion (BS-18 to BS-21) Rules, 2019”.

5.It is pertinent to mention here that in the same letter, reference was made to Section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 reminding him that “no representation lies against the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade”. Thus, the question atleast to the extent of jurisdiction stands decided, because, where no representation lies against the determination of fitness of a civil servant in terms of the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, correspondingly no appeal is maintainable under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which

also prohibits Service Appeal before the Service Tribunal concerned under Section 4(b) of the Act ibid which provides that “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”.

The cases of promotion of civil servants to all posts in BS- 18 to BS-21 reserved for promotion in their respective cadres or services are governed under the statutory SRO dated 05.12.2019, Government of Pakistan Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division’s Notification dated 03.12.2019 (the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-

21)Rules, 2019). In terms of Rule 14 of “the Rules, 2019”, the post in BS-19 to BS-21 shall be selection posts. In sub- rule (2) of Rule 14 of “the Rules, 2019”, for selection posts, PERs and TERs shall be given due importance. Under Rule 16 of “the Rules, 2019”, ‘efficiency index for promotion, deferment and supersession’ is provided, according to which, for promotion to BS-21, aggregate marks of efficiency index shall be atleast 75%. Similarly, under Rule 19 of “the Rules, 2019”, for promotion to BS-21, besides other trainings, the officer must have undergone the National Management Course (NMC)/National Security and War Couse (NSWC) at NDU. According to the criteria

provided under “the Rules, 2019”, at the relevant time, petitioner was fulfilling the same.

6.It is noted that the grounds of supersession provided in the impugned letter are mainly (i) the officer’s promotion potential in the TERs of his SMC and NMC was assessed as “good” against the better available options of “Very Good” and “Outstanding”; (ii) the Board noted that in the PERs of the officer for the period 09.09.2021 to 31.12.2021 and 01.01.2022 to 08.05.2022, he was assessed as ‘B’ in the columns of “Integrity” and “Quality of Work”;

(iii)the Board considered the petitioner as of an average competence and questionable financial integrity; and (iv) he does not exert himself in the performance of his assigned tasks and has a lackadaisical approach and mixed reputation. He was, thus, awarded only 09 marks out of the assigned 30 marks of the Central Selection Board and as such, having failed to achieve the minimum threshold as provided under “the Rules, 2019” was superseded.

7.The main issue in this case relates to the evaluation by the Central Selection Board. Consideration of officers by the Central Selection Board remained under consideration before the superior Courts of this country and pursuant to the judgments of the superior Courts, even proforma meant for members of the Central Selection Board was revised, rules were framed so that the discretion

of the Central Selection Board shall be structured.

Reference can be made to the cases titled “Tariq Aziz-ud- Din and others (Human Rights case) (2010 SCMR 1301), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and others Vs. Dr. Muhammad Arif and others (2017 SCMR 969)”.

8.Rule 6 of “the Rules, 2019” provides for the “eligibility criteria for consideration for promotion” while Rule 8 of “the Rules, 2019” provides for “conditions for supersession”, however, “Guidelines for CSB/DSB/DPC” have been provided in Schedule-I provided under Rule 4(2) of “the Rules, 2019”. The relevant provisions of the “Guidelines” are reproduced as under:- “Guidelines for CSB/DSB/DPC While considering cases of officers on the panel, the CSB, DSB and DPC concerned shall adhere to the following guidelines, namely:-

(a)Performance evaluation reports shall be given due importance but shall not be the sole criterion for promotion to selection posts;

(b).......

(c).......

(d).......

(e).......

(f)Posts carrying basic pay scale 21 fall in senior management involving important policy-making or extensive administrative jurisdictions. In addition to the

circulation value and variety of experience the incumbents must possess proven analytical competence, breadth of vision, emotional maturity and such other qualities as determine the potential for successfully holding posts in top management. This potential cannot be judged by mathematical formula. The Selection Board will have to apply its collective judgment to determine the same.

For promotion to senior management posts, a civil servant must fulfill qualifying service, eligibility threshold, qualifications, relevance of experience, quality and output of work and integrity, variety of experience, training and Top Management Potential.

Since officers promoted to this level may be called, upon to hold independent charge of a Ministry/Division or to head a major corporation, the Board should satisfy itself about the officer's maturity, balance and ability to assume such top management positions even at short notice”.

Similarly, ‘proforma’ is provided in Schedule-IV under the heading “Objective Assessment by Central/ Departmental Selection Board”.

9.In the instant case, petitioner has not been considered by the Central Selection Board as fit to be

promoted and such assessment is objective, as such, on the last date of hearing, we called upon Mr. Akbar Yousaf Khalil, DAG, representing the respondent-Federation, to provide the synopsis of his ACRs/PERs and Objective Assessment Form. Today, these documents were produced in sealed envelope for perusal of the Court. The Central Selection Board has considered last five PERs of the petitioner while considering his promotion, as such, on going through the synopsis, we find that the overall grading of the petitioner was either “good”, “very good” or “outstanding”. Unfortunately, the Central Selection Board has commented upon the integrity of the petitioner while his PERs show his integrity throughout as “irreproachable, honest and straightforward”. Similarly, on account of his integrity, there were recommendations that “he would do well in positions where financial integrity is of primary importance”. Similarly, in the column of his performance, it has been reported that “petitioner has produced quality output and always produced work of exceptionally high quality”.

10.Keeping in view the PERs of the petitioner and the reports regarding his performance, we are of the view that the assessment made by the Central Selection Board is not in accordance with the service record of the petitioner and much weight has been given to the input by

the departmental representative which appears to be extraneous to “the Rules, 2019” and shows biasness of such representative towards the petitioner. If consideration of the officer(s) for promotion is/are made on the basis of any such additional information or output of “departmental representative” then “the Rules, 2019” would become redundant. The superior Courts of this country remained consistent on the fact that consideration of officers should be structured and it should not be based on intelligence reports or any such additional information never remained part of service record of the officer.

11.For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed. The supersession of the petitioner, conveyed vide letter dated 07.08.2025, is hereby struck down. The respondents are directed to place the case of the petitioner for promotion to BS-21 strictly in accordance with law, in an impartial, reasonable and objective manner keeping in view his merit as reflected in his service record and PERs.

Announced Dt:15.04.2026 Senior Puisne Judge

Judge

(DB)Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ijaz Anwar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inam Ullah Khan *Muhammadullah*