Zafar Ul Islam Vs The Federation of Pakistan etc

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Writ Petition No. 5576-P/2025 Zafar Ul Islam

vs.

The Federation of Pakistan & others

Date of hearing: 01.04.2026

For Petitioners: M/s Khushdil Khan Advocate and Muhammad Aitzaz Kamal Advocate.

For Respondents: M/s Waqar Orakzai AAG along with Rahat Ali Nahaqi AAG (F).

JUDGMENT

FARAH JAMSHED, J.- This single judgment shall dispose of the instant writ petition along with connected writ petition No.9368-P of 2025, titled “Atif Rehman vs. Federation of Pakistan and others”, as both arise out of common questions of law and facts.

2.The grievance of petitioners relates to the legality and transparency of the promotion process undertaken by the Central Selection Board (CSB), the recommendation of their supersession, the validity of the impugned notification dated 07.08.2025, and petitioners’ claimed entitlement to fair reconsideration for promotion to the next higher scales along with consequential pecuniary and ancillary benefits in

accordance with law, rules, and the principles laid down by the Superior Courts.

3.Petitioners are civil servants, presently serving in BPS- 19 and BPS-20. Petitioner, Zafar-ul-Islam is posted as Commissioner, D.I.Khan Division, whereas, petitioner Atif Rehman is posted as Additional Chief Secretary, Planning and Development, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Their cases were placed before the CSB, for promotion to BPS-20 and BPS-21 respectively. However, the Board recommended their supersession which was conveyed through impugned letter dated 07.08.2025. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have invoked the constitution.al jurisdiction of this Court, seeking declaration that the impugned action is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to the applicable rules and policy, and therefore liable to be set aside.

4.In response, para wise comments were submitted by the respondents, contesting the writ petitions. It is their stance that the petitioners were not found fit for promotion, after consideration of their professional expertise, quality and output, general reputation and integrity, the latter being one of the most material consideration for promotion to selection posts, hence, requested that the instant writ petition along with connected writ petition No.9368-P/2025 are liable to be dismissed.

5.Arguments heard and record perused.

6.Considering the submissions made at bar, the record when perused, indicates that both the petitioners are presently holding public posts, as already mentioned above. In the case of petitioner Zafar-ul-Islam, his Performance Evaluation Reports (PER) reveal that the reporting as well as countersigning officers have consistently graded him as “Very Good” and “Outstanding” and have recommended him as fit for promotion. Similar is the position in respect of the official service record of petitioner Atif Rehman, inasmuch as no adverse material sufficient to support the impugned conclusion has been placed before this Court.

7.On the other hand, respondents, despite filing para-wise comments have not brought on record any disciplinary proceedings, departmental inquiry, adverse action or other tangible material against the petitioners.

8.Pursuant to the directions of this Court, Objective Assessment Form of the petitioners were also produced in sealed envelopes. The impugned action qua petitioner Zafar- ul-Islam was justified by the respondents in the following manner.-

“The Board deliberated upon the service profile, PERS/TERs, additional information 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 carried a mixed reputation regarding his integrity and professional

competence. The Board deliberated in detail about the officer's performance considering input from the departmental representative, members of the Board and additional information available. The departmental representative shared that he does not carry good reputation and is an officer of average competence and mixed financial integrity. He is prone to abusing his official authority for personal gains and gratification. Reportedly, his financial conduct while awarding contracts was not above Board. It was determined that while the officer's record as reflected in his PERs is adequate, he is reputed to be an officer of average competence and questionable financial integrity which is not in sync with his quantified performance. 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. Zafar-ul-Islam is not fit to discharge responsibilities that he will have to shoulder if promoted. The Board awarded 09 marks to Mr. Zafar-ul-Islam; thereby, placing him in Category-C. The officer failed to meet the required threshold of 70 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.”

In respect of petitioner Mr. Atif Rehman, in connected W.P No.9368-P/2025, the Board made following observations.-

“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 observed that NDU report depicts that the officer needs to work on improvement of his interpersonal skills. The Board deliberated in detail about the officer's performance considering input from the departmental representative, members of the Board and additional information available. The departmental representatives rated him as an average officer with doubtful financial integrity. A consensus emerged that while the officer has acceptable service record in terms of PERs, he is reputed to be an officer of average competence and questionable integrity which is not in sync with his quantified performance. 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 "Şikandar 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. Atif Rehman 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 10 marks to Mr. Atif Rehman; 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.”

9.Examination of the above reasons shows that decisive weightage was given to the input of the Departmental Representative (DR) against the petitioners’ quantified service profile and PERs/TERs. However, the comments filed by respondents Nos.01, 02 & 03 are silent in respect of specific

reference to any document, inquiry, complaint, intelligence material, adverse report, or verifiable source because of which such serious conclusions were drawn.

10.Upon query of this court, Syed Zeeshan Raza Zaidi, Section Officer, Establishment Division, Islamabad, referred to Rule 5 of Civil Servant Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019, which provides that “the CSB may besides other information considered intelligence report of SVA to arrive at a decision”, but no such report or material was produced before this Court to substantiate the remarks recorded against the petitioners.

11.For clarity on the department’s stance regarding PER quantification, promotion, supersession, and the Departmental Representative’s role, the relevant rules are reproduced below for ease of reference. Rule 8 of the ibid Rules, which deals with Conditions for supersession, reads as under.-

8.Conditions for supersession.- A civil servant shall be recommended for supersession, if-

(a)he/she does not meet The requisite threshold for promotion to a particular post or grade in any particular service, group or post;

(b)subject to the provisions of rule 22, he/she fails thrice for any reason to attend the mandatory training; or (c) there is any other reason which shall be recorded in writing by the CSB, DSB or DPC as the case may be.

12.Similarly, Rule 16 provides the Efficiency index for promotion, deferment and supersession and prescribes the

minimum threshold of marks for various basic pay scales in the following manners.-

16.Efficiency index for promotion, deferment and supersession.- The minimum threshold of marks for promotion to various basic pay scales mentioned in column (2) of the Table below shall be as mentioned in column (3) of that Table, namely:-

TABLE

S.No. Basic Pay Scale Aggregate marks of efficiency index

1 BS-18 60

2 BS-19 65

3 BS-20 70

4 BS-21 75

13.Rule 18 deals with Quantification of PERs, training evaluation reports and CSB, DSB and DPC evaluation by the CSB, DSB and DPC. The said rule, read with Schedule-IV, shows that the discretion of the Selection Board has been structured through an objective assessment mechanism so that promotions to selection posts are regulated by transparent, fair and measurable criteria.

14.It was argued that the Board wrongly relied upon the report of DR, which was not in accordance with Rule 24 of the ibid Rule, which reads as under.-

24.Responsibilities of the Departmental Representative.- While forwarding proposals for consideration of CSB, DSB and DPC the administrative Ministries, Divisions and Departments shall follow the guidelines set out in Schedule-VI.

Schedule-VI (3).- The departmental representative who attend the meeting of the CSB, DSB and DPC shall apprise the CSB, DSB and DPC whether or not any departmental proceedings or investigations/trial by NAB, FIA, ACE etc are pending against the government servants whose cases are being considered by the CSB, DSB and

DPC.

15.The statutory role of the DR is thus not to substitute personal impressions for official record, nor to introduce unsupported adverse opinion as decisive material. His role is to assist the Board by placing before it relevant, verifiable and official information, including whether any departmental proceedings, inquiry, investigation or trial is pending against the officer under consideration.

16.It is the stance of the petitioners that the CSB acted arbitrarily by relying upon a vague and unsupported input of the Departmental Representative, thereby disturbing the quantified assessment based upon PERs/TERs and other official material. It was further contended that the Objective Assessment was not made in bona fide manner. and that the impugned supersession is the result of subjective impressions unsupported by record.

17.Considering these submissions of the petitioners, learned A.A.Gs as well as Syed Zeeshan Raza Zaidi, Sections Officer, Establishment Division, Islamabad were asked about the relevant record in respect of the report of DR relied upon by the CSB while considering the promotion case of the petitioners, however, none was available nor same was annexed with the comments.

18.Interestingly, the PERs of the petitioner, Zafar Ul Islam, brought on record by respondents Nos.01, 02 & 03 along with

their comments, present an altogether different picture. From the year 2010 till 2024, he consistently earned the grading of “Very Good” and “Outstanding” and was repeatedly declared fit for promotion by his reporting and countersigning officers.

His quality of work, professional competence, administrative capacity and performance were consistently assessed to be of high standard. These official assessments stand in direct contradiction to the observations of the CSB describing him as an officer of average competence and questionable financial integrity. Likewise, no adverse entry or material has been produced in respect of petitioner Atif Rehman to support the adverse opinion attributed to the Departmental Representative.

19.There is no cavil that assessment of fitness and suitability for promotion falls within the prerogative of the competent authority, and it is not for the ordinary or constitutional courts to determine a candidate’s eligibility or qualification for appointment or promotion. It is equally settled that promotion is not a vested right and cannot be claimed as such by any civil servant. However, the Board’s powers are not unfettered; they must be exercised in accordance with the applicable promotion policy and rules framed from time to time. Accordingly, the Board’s discretion in promotion matters remains subject to judicial scrutiny where it is challenged on grounds of mala fide or discrimination.

20.The main controversy involved in the instant matter pertains to the manner and legality of evaluation conducted by the Central Selection Board. The scope of consideration by the CSB remained under examination before the Superior Courts.

The Supreme Court has emphasized the need to structure and channelize discretion through objective criteria. Pursuant to such principles, assessment proformas and rules were revised so that the exercise of discretion by the Board may not degenerate into subjectivity or arbitrariness1 2.

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)

21.In this background, Schedule IV of the ibid Rules provides a quantification formula. Its purpose is to ensure fair and just assessment of the candidate for promotion. Similarly, the 30 marks reserved for evaluation by the Board are not meant to authorize unbridled discretion. Even while assessing professional ethics, conduct, integrity, general reputation and suitability, the Board must base its opinion primarily on record, material, verifiable information and rational evaluation.

22.As already discussed above, not a single document has been brought on record demonstrating the questionable professional competence as well as personal integrity of the petitioners reflected in the impugned supersession order. The Objective Assessment in respect of output and quality of work, personality profile, leadership, integrity and general perception is not supported by any material. The adverse remarks appear to rest substantially upon the opinion of the DR, stands from the personal view and opinion and not from any tangible record.

23.Any adverse information gathered against a civil servant, if intended to be used to his detriment in a matter affecting his career, reputation and future prospects, ought to have some recognizable basis in record. Same principle is

applicable to the petitioners as well. The petitioners have been leveled as “officer of average competence and mixed financial integrity”, and “average officer with doubtful financial integrity”, are not only lacking supporting evidence but also carry a stigmatic in nature and have the inevitable effect of tarnishing the officer’s character and standing. These remarks not only impugn their professional reputation and public image but also undermine their dignity at professional and personal plans.

24.The Lahore High Court in Liaqat Ali Chugtai3 case, while referring to “Khumalo vs. Holomisa” of Constitutional Court of South Africa referred to human dignity as follows :- “The value of human dignity in our Constitution is not only concerned with an individual’s sense of self worth, but constitutes an affirmation of the worth of human beings in our society. It includes the intrinsic worth of human beings shared by all people as well as the individuals reputation of each person built upon his or her own individual achievements. The value of human dignity in our constitution therefore, values both the personal sense of self worth as well as the public estimation of the worth or value of an individual.”

25.The above principle applies with full force where an officer’s integrity is questioned without disclosed supporting material. Administrative confidentiality may protect sensitive sources or internal deliberations, but it cannot be stretched to Liaqat Ali Chugtai vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Railway and 6 others

[2012 PLC (C.S.) 1062]

justify an unsupported stigmatic conclusion or to place a decision beyond judicial scrutiny. Confidentiality is not a cloak for arbitrariness.

26.Besides, non-disclosure of average marks or reasons, especially when allegations of “average competence” and “questionable integrity” are levelled without prior communication or supporting material, renders the process doubtful and offends the principles of natural justice.

Confidentiality, therefore, cannot be stretched to justify non- communication of reasons or to shield an otherwise reviewable decision from judicial scrutiny, particularly where the action complained of is supersession and that too which frustrates the legitimate expectation of fair consideration under the law.

27.It is to be noted that right of “access to justice to all” is a well-recognized right, enriched in Article 9 of the Constitution and is equally found in doctrine of “due process of law”. It includes the right to be treated in accordance with law, the right to have a fair and proper trial and a right to have an impartial court or tribunal, as observed by the supreme court in Sheikh Riaz Ul Haq case4.

Sh. Riaz Ul Haq vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 501)

28.We are conscious of the fact that in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, this court cannot declare the petitioners fit for promotion, nor can it substitute its own opinion for that of the Central Selection Board. However, this Court can examine the fairness and soundness of Board’s decision. The defect in the present case is not merely one of insufficiency of marks; it lies in the manner in which adverse marks and adverse conclusions were assigned without supporting material and in disregard of the petitioners’ otherwise favourable service record.

29.For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition as well as connected Writ Petition No.9368-P of 2025 titled “Atif Rehman vs. Federation of Pakistan and others” are partially allowed. The impugned recommendation dated 07.08.2025, to the extent of the petitioners, is set aside. The cases of the petitioners are remitted to the Central Selection Board/competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law, rules, policy and the objective quantification criteria applicable to the field.

30.The reconsideration shall be carried out independently, fairly and in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall preferably be completed within a

period of ninety (90) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Date of hearing and announcement .......01.04.2026 Date of preparation & Signing .............20.05.2026

(DB)Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Farah Jamshed (Jebran, C.O)