Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2006 P L C (C

2006 P L C (C. S.) 85

[Lahore High Court]

Before Ch. Ijaz Ahmad and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ

Mirza LUTUF MUHAMMAD KHAN, CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER/FREIGHT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through its Secretary Establishment Division and 11 others

Writ Petition No.12405 of 2003, heard on 18-6-2004.

Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---

------Ss. 8 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Seniority and promotion---Petitioner, who was an officer of BS-19, filed constitutional petition against his supersession in year 2001 and then in 2003 on the ground that he had requisite overall quantified score of 70, but was arbitrarily superseded on irrelevant consideration---Reasons for superseding petitioner given in meeting of Central Selection Board held in 2003, were irrelevant because full facts regarding Performance Evaluation Reports of petitioner for 2000 and 2001 were not reported to Central Selection Board---Hurdle in the way of petitioner was that ACR for the year 2000 was yet to be completed while his report for the year 2001 was yet to be countersigned and respondent-Authority was in default in not getting petitioner's Performance Evaluation Report for the year 2001 completed---Even when petitioner's representation was being placed before competent Authority, nobody made an effort to get said report completed by getting it countersigned by competent Authority---Unless Performance Evaluation Reports of petitioner for the years 2000 and 2001 were completed, his overall. quantified score could not be correctly worked out in accordance with Promotion Policy---Petitioner, in circumstances, was made to suffer for the default of Authorities concerned---High Court, declined to interfere in the matter---Authority however was directed to get Performance Evaluation Reports of petitioner for years 2000 and 2001 completed, within specified period and thereafter to place case of petitioner before Central Selection Board.

Omer Alvi, for Petitioner.

Muhammad Masood Chishti,/Standing Counsel with Hafiz Khalid Mahmood, Joint Secretary and Mr. Muhammad Akram Javed Suppt. Establishment Division, Islamabad for Respondent No. 1.

Irfan Masood Sheikh, with Mr. Shahid Aslam Mahar, Deputy Director Admn.-I for Respondent No.2.

Date of hearing: 18th June, 2004.

JUDGMENT

SYED JAMSHED ALI, J.---The petitioner is an Officer in BS-19 in the Transportation (Traffic) and Commercial Department of the Pakistan Railways. His grievance in the petition is against his supersession initially in the year 2001 and then in 2003. The case of the petitioner is that he is at No.1 of the seniority list of Grade-19 officers of the said group and had the requisite overall quantified score of 70 but was arbitrarily superseded on irrelevant considerations.

2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Government has shown to us the relevant record. The petitioner was first considered in the meeting of Central Selection Board (CSB for short) held on 22-6-2002. Only one post was then available. The only recommended of the said Board was Mr. Nazir Ahmad with overall quantified score of 77 while the petitioner had a score of 76. He was again considered in the meeting of Central Selection Board held on 3rd and 4th July, 2003. On this occasion six posts were available. The Central Selection Board, however, recommended only four officers. It may be noted that while the petitioner had an overall quantified score of 72 on this occasion the last recommendee had an overall score of 76. The petitioner was superseded on the ground that his juniors were found to be better qualified and that this Performance Evaluation Reports (PER for short) for the years 2000 and 2001 contained adverse remarks.

3. Explaining the aforesaid remarks the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the PER for the year 2000 is concerned it was for the period from 20-4-2000 to 14-8-2000 and vide letter No.5/18-3/95/A-I dated 27-12-2001 of the Ministry of Communications and Railways (Railways Division to Secretary Chairman Railways) had directed cancellation of the said report and the petitioner was directed to send the pro forma duly filled in for the above-mentioned period for re-initiation. As far as the PER for 2001 is concerned, he submitted that not only it was incomplete but representation was pending against it.

4. The representative of the Railways produced the record in respect of petitioners PER for the year 2001. We found that the said reports is still to be countersigned. The representation of the petitioner against the adverse remarks for the year 2001 was placed before the Minister, the competent authority, on which he recorded the following minutes "not yet". Resultantly, the said representation is still pending disposal. Perusal of the said report shows that in part-3 the petitioner was described as "an efficient staff officer yet had to prove his strength in command". These remarks were treated as adverse and conveyed to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that unless the report for the year 2001 was countersigned it was not complete because the countersigning authority could competently disagree with the assessments of the Reporting Officer. He maintains that while the report for the year 2000 had already been cancelled, the report for the year 2001 not being complete could not have been pressed against the petitioner and therefore, the decision of the Central Selection Board was bayed on irrelevant considerations. As far as the merit of the petitioner is concerned he maintained that question of comparative merit qua his juniors could only arise if only four posts were available when the meeting of C.S.B. was held on 3rd and 4th July, 2003 while on the said occasion six posts were available. Therefore, the other reason recorded by the Central Selection Board i.e. that the juniors had better merit was not relevant either.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The reasons for superseding the petitioner in the meeting of the CSB held in 2003 were not relevant. This was because full facts regarding the PERs of the petitioner for 2000 and 2001 were not reported to the CSB as is borne out by the synopsis submitted before them which were perused by us. However, the hurdle in the way of the petitioner is that his ACR for the year 2000 yet to be completed while his report for the year 2001 is yet to be countersigned. Although the petitioner was directed to submit the PER pro forma for 2000, yet as far as his PER for the year 2001 is concerned the Authorities in the Pakistan Railways aye clearly in default in not getting petitioner's PER for the year 2001 completed. Even when petitioner's representation was being placed before the competent Authority, nobody made an effort to get the said report completed by getting it countersigned by the competent Authority. There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the countersigning authority could competently disagree with the assessment of the Reporting Officer. Therefore, unless the PERs of the petitioner for the year 2000 and 2001 were completed his overall quantified score could not be correctly worked out in accordance with Promotion Policy of the Federal Government. Thus, the petitioner was, in fact, made to suffer for the default of the authorities concerned.

6. For what has been stated above we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. However, we direct Respondent No.2 the Secretary Chairman Railways, to get the PERs of the petitioner for the years 2000 and 2001 completed within a period of two months and thereafter to place the case of the petitioner before the CSB. This petition is dismissed with the above direction.

H.B.T./L-139/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant