Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 259783
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Dr Mutahir Shah vs Establishment Division
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 259783. In this matter between Dr Mutahir Shah and Establishment Division, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas DECISION DATE: 30-APR-2026 CASE NO: Writ Petition-2409-2025 CITATION: 2026 IHC 259783 PARTIES: Dr Mutahir Shah VS Establishment Division LAW / SECTION: under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 | under section 31A of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 | Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 | Articles 4, 9, 18, 25, and 10-A of the Constitution SUBJECT: Service, Other REMARKS: A bps 19 doctor of PIMS files this writ against CSB decision to not promote him to bps 20. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
1. WRIT PETITION NO. 2409 OF 2025 DR MUTAHIR SHAH VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, AND OTHERS 2. WRIT PETITION NO. 3171 OF 2025 IQBAL AHMAD SHEIKH VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS 3. WRIT PETITION NO. 3172 OF 2025 SHAKEEL AHMED SHAKEEL VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS 4. WRIT PETITION NO. 3173 OF 2025 MIRZA NASIR ALI VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS 5. WRIT PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2025 M UHAMMAD MUTI UR REHMAN MUMTAZ VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 6. WRIT PETITION NO. 3261 OF 2025 WILAYAT KHAN VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 7. WRIT PETITION NO. 3262 OF 2025 SYED ALI ADNAN ZAIDI VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 8. WRIT PETITION NO. 3263 OF 2025 MUHAMMAD ZAHID VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 9. WRIT PETITION NO. 3264 OF 2025 MUMTAZ ALI BOHIO VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
2 W.P.’s No. 2409/2025, 3171/2024, 3172,3173,3260 to 3267/2025,3643,3644,4587,4999,5543,5544, 1221,4563 & 1286 of 2025.
10. WRIT PETITION NO. 3265 OF 2025 M UHAMMAD AMIN QURESHI VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 11. WRIT PETITION NO. 3266 OF 2025 ATTIQUE-UR-REHMAN MUGHAL VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 12. WRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 2025 MUHAMMAD ASLAM JAMRO VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 13. WRIT PETITION NO. 3643 OF 2025 DR. MUHAMMAD AKHTAR ABBAS VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER 14. WRIT PETITION NO. 3644 OF 2025 NISAR AHMED KHAN VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER 15. WRIT PETITION NO. 4587 OF 2025 BILAL AHMED BUTT VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND ANOTHER 16. WRIT PETITION NO. 4999 OF 2025 DR SAJID HUSSAIN ARIAN VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS 17. WRIT PETITION NO. 5543 OF 2025 ARBAB QAISER HAMID VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 18. WRIT PETITION NO. 5544 OF 2025 DR. NASIR KHAN VERSUS ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
DATES OF HEARING: 12.02.2026, 24.02.2026 & 25.02.2026
19. WRIT PETITION NO. 1221 OF 2025 ISRAR AHMED KHAN AND OTHERS
3 W.P.’s No. 2409/2025, 3171/2024, 3172,3173,3260 to 3267/2025,3643,3644,4587,4999,5543,5544, 1221,4563 & 1286 of 2025.
VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 20. WRIT PETITION NO. 4563 OF 2025 MUJAHID AKBAR KHAN AND OTHERS VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS 21. WRIT PETITION NO. 1286 OF 2025 AGHA MUHAMMAD YOUSAF VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS DATE OF HEARING: 06.04.2026 Petitioners by: M/s Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Khawaja Adnan Zahir, Yasir Rahim Bhatti and Qaiser Rahim Bhatti, Advocates in writ petitions No. 3171 to 3713 of 2025 and 4999/2025. M/s Barrister M. Saad Buttar, Muiz Gul, Tahir Hussain Anchan, Barrister Danyal Sohail and Muhammad Fayaz, Advocates in writ petitions No. 3260 to 3267 of 2025, 2409/2025, 3643/2025, 3644/2025, 5543/2025 and 5544/2025. M/s Muhammad Masood Chishti and Saqib Haroon, Advocates in writ petition No. 4587/2025. Khurram M. Qureshi, Advocate in writ petitions No. 1221 and 4563 of 2025. M/s Kamran Murtaza and Hassan Kamran, Advocates in writ petition No. 1286/2025. Respondent No. 1 (Establishment Division) by: Mr. Rashid Hafeez Additional Attorney General, Mr. Mian M. Faisal Irfan, DAG and Mr. Fahad Khan Tareen, AAG along with Raja Saim-ul-Haq Satti, Legal Advisor, Syed Zeeshan Raza Zaidi S.O., Amir M. Afridi S.O., Shoukat Ali Khan S.O., Dr. Abdul Qayyum, S.O., Establishment Division, and Muzamil Shah, A.D. (Legal) M/O NHS. Respondent No. 2 (FBR) by: M/s Zainab Janjua and Ahmed Zeeshan, Advocates in writ petitions No. 3171 to 3713 of 2025, 3260 to 3267 of 2025, 5543/2025, 5544/2025 and 4999/2025. ASSISTED BY: Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi, Advocate.
INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- This common judgment shall decide the afore-titled writ petitions, as they involve similar questions of law and facts.
4 W.P.’s No. 2409/2025, 3171/2024, 3172,3173,3260 to 3267/2025,3643,3644,4587,4999,5543,5544, 1221,4563 & 1286 of 2025.
2. In all the petitions, the petitioners seek, inter alia, a declaration that their non-promotion be set aside and that the impugned letters, whereby their supersession and deferment were communicated, be declared illegal and without lawful authority. The petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 4563, 1221, and 1286 of 2025 have, in addition, sought a declaration that the proceedings of the Central Selection Board (“CSB”) meeting held on 11th-14th March, 2025 be declared coram non judice and, thus, of no legal effect. 3. Since the facts of these petitions are common, in that they arise from the same set of proceedings, this Court deems it appropriate to provide a brief account of the factual matrix by bifurcating the same in categories A and B along with the reasoning. A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4. The petitioners in the petitions listed below at serial numbers 1-6 in Category A are civil servants belonging to the Police Service of Pakistan and the petitioner listed at serial number 7 belongs to the Pakistan Administrative Service. At the time of the CSB’s meeting they were serving in BS-20 and were eligible to be considered for promotion to BS-21. The Board, after deliberation in each case did not recommend promotion for the petitioners. The reasons of the Impugned Decisions are reproduced herein below:- CATEGORY A SR. NO. TITLE OF PETITION & POSTING AT THE TIME OF IMPUGNED DECISION REASONS FOR IMPUGNED DECISION 1 W.P. No. 3643 of 2025 Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Abbas vs. Establishment Division through its Secretary and Another.
Posting: PSP/BS-20, Lahore. 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/feedback from the departmental representatives on his financial integrity and professional competence, members of the Board and additional information presented before the board. The departmental representative expressed reservations about his integrity, behavioral issues and professional competence. It was determined that while the officer’s record as reflected in his PERs is adequate, he is generally viewed as an officer of average competence. The Board considered that 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 effectively…the
5 W.P.’s No. 2409/2025, 3171/2024, 3172,3173,3260 to 3267/2025,3643,3644,4587,4999,5543,5544, 1221,4563 & 1286 of 2025.
CATEGORY A SR. NO. TITLE OF PETITION & POSTING AT THE TIME OF IMPUGNED DECISION REASONS FOR IMPUGNED DECISION Board arrived at the conclusion that Dr. Muhammad Akhtar Abbas 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. 2 W.P. No. 3644 of 2025 Nisar Ahmed Khan v. Establishment Division through its Secretary and Another.
Posting: PSP/BS-20, Director General, Coordination Unit for Implementation of Initiatives in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar. The Board noted that the officer carried a mixed reputation regarding his integrity and professional competence. The Board further noted that the officer has earned “Good” PER for the period 01.01.2024 to 18.05.2024 where in the Countersigning Officer has remarked that the Reporting Officer is very generous in his views. Officer only wanted to stay on filed assignments and lacked professionalism. The Board deliberated in detail about the officer’s performance considering input/feedback from the departmental representatives on his financial integrity and professional competence, members of the Board and additional information presented before the board. It was also shared that the officer had entered in a Voluntary Return (VR) that raises concerns about his integrity and has a tainted reputation. It was determined that while the officer's record as reflected in his PERs is adequate, he is generally viewed as an officer of average competence. The Board considered that 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 effectively…..After detailed deliberations covering all the aspect of the officer’s performance the Board arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Nisar Ahmad Khan 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. 3 W.P. No. 4563 of 2025 Mujahid Akbar Khan v. Federation of Pakistan Establishment Division through its Secretary and Another.
Posting: PSP/BS-20, Additional Director General, FIA, Karachi. The Board noted that the officer carried a mixed reputation regarding his integrity and professional competence. Moreover, his promotion potential in the training report of NMC was described as “Good” against the better available options of “Very Good” and “Outstanding”. The Board deliberated in detail about the officer's performance considering input/feedback from the departmental representatives on his financial integrity and professional competence, members of the Board and additional information presented before the board. The departmental representative shared that he is professionally weak, along with concerns regarding his behavior and financial integrity. The additional information placed before the board had potential negative/serious ramifications reflecting adversely on the conduct of the officer. It was determined that while the officer's record as reflected in his PERs is adequate, he is generally viewed as an officer of average competence.
6 W.P.’s No. 2409/2025, 3171/2024, 3172,3173,3260 to 3267/2025,3643,3644,4587,4999,5543,5544, 1221,4563 & 1286 of 2025.
CATEGORY A SR. NO. TITLE OF PETITION & POSTING AT THE TIME OF IMPUGNED DECISION REASONS FOR IMPUGNED DECISION The Board considered that 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 effectively… After detailed deliberations covering all the aspect of the officer’s performance the Board arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Mujahid Akbar Khan 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. 4 W.P. No. 4563 of 2025 Sheikh Yaseen Farooq v. Federation of Pakistan, Establishment Division through its Secretary and others.
Posting: PSP/BS-20 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/feedback from the departmental representatives on his financial integrity and professional competence, members of the Board and additional information presented before the board. It was determined that while the officer’s record as reflected in his PERs is adequate, he is generally 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 effectively…After detailed deliberations covering all the aspect of the officer’s performance the Board arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Yaseen Farooq Sheikh 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. 5 W.P. No. 4563 of 2025 Israr Ahmed Khan v. Federation of Pakistan, Establishment Division through its Secretary and others.
Posting: PSP/BS-20, Director, Anti Narcotics Force (ANF), Islamabad. The Board noted that the officer carried a mixed reputation regarding his integrity and professional competence. Moreover, his promotion potential in the training report of NMC was described as “Good” against the better available options of “Very Good” and “Outstanding”. The Board deliberated in detail about the officer’s performance considering input/feedback from the departmental representatives on his financial integrity and professional competence, members of the Board and additional information presented before the board. It was determined that while the officer’s record as reflected in his PERs is adequate, he is generally viewed as an officer of average competence. The Board considered that 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 effectively…After detailed deliberations covering all the aspect of the officer’s performance the Board arrived at the conclusion that Mr.
7 W.P.’s No. 2409/2025, 3171/2024, 3172,3173,3260 to 3267/2025,3643,3644,4587,4999,5543,5544, 1221,4563 & 1286 of 2025.
CATEGORY A SR. NO. TITLE OF PETITION & POSTING AT THE TIME OF IMPUGNED DECISION REASONS FOR IMPUGNED DECISION Israr Ahmed Khan 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. 6 W.P. No. 1286 of 2025 Agha Muhammad Yousaf v. Government of Pakistan and others.
Moreover, his promotion potential in the training report of NMC was described as “Good” against the better available options of “Very Good”. The board deliberated in detail about the officer’s performance considering input / feedback from the departmental representative on his financial integrity and professional competence, members of the Board and additional information presented before the Board. It was determined that while the officer’s record as reflected in his PERs is adequate, he is generally viewed as an officer of average competence and controversial financial integrity. The Board considered that he is reputed as an officer of average competence and questionable integrity which is not in sync with his quantified performance… After detailed deliberations covering all the aspects of the officer’s performance the Board arrived at the conclusion that Agha Muhammad Yousaf is an officer with repute of an average competence and peccable integrity and is not fit to discharge responsibilities that he will have to shoulder if promoted. 7 W.P. No. 4587 of 2025 Secretary Bilal Ahmed Butt v. Establishment Division through its Secretary and Another.
Posting: PAS/BS-20, Lahore. The Board noted that the officer’s promotion potential in the TER of his MC was assessed as “Very Good” against the better available option of Outstanding. 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 casted doubts on his integrity. The officer failed to join mandatory training thrice which depicts his casual attitude towards professional development. It was informed that he has a chequered history over the course of his career including involvement in controversies and has a general repute of doubtful financial integrity. It was noted that, while the officer’s service record as reflected in his PERs is adequate, concerns were raised regarding his integrity which has been questioned and found to be inconsistent with his assessed performance. The board expressed reservations that the promotion of an officer with a reputation of questionable financial integrity may hinder the effective discharge of duties and would not serve public interest in a befitting manner….the Board arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Bilal Ahmed Butt 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. 5. The petitioners, whose names are reflected in Category B, are civil servants belonging to the Inland Revenue Service. They were considered for
8 W.P.’s No. 2409/2025, 3171/2024, 3172,3173,3260 to 3267/2025,3643,3644,4587,4999,5543,5544, 1221,4563 & 1286 of 2025.
promotion to BS-20 and upon deliberation in each individual case, the Board recommended their supersession and deferment. The reasons forming the basis of such recommendations were not communicated immediately. Instead, the petitioners in the petitions listed at serial Nos. 1 to 12 in Category B were apprised of the reasons on 03.09.2025, whereas those at serial Nos. 13 and 14 received such communication on 01.12.2025. CATEGORY B SR. NO. TITLE OF PETITION & POSTING AT THE TIME OF IMPUGNED DECISION REASONS FOR IMPUGNED DECISION 1 W.P. No. 3171 of 2025 Iqbal Ahmad Sheikh vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division and others.
Posting: IRS/BS-19, Commissioner (OPS), (Appeals-III), Karachi. The Board noted that the officer carried a mixed reputation regarding his integrity and professional competence. The Board arrived at a consensus that the officer is reputed to be an officer of average competence and questionable integrity. The Board expressed reservations 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 reached at the conclusion that Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Shaikh is not fit to discharge responsibilities that he will have to shoulder if promoted. 2 W.P. No. 3172 of 2025 Shakeel Ahmed Shakeel v. Federation of Pakistan Secretary Establishment Division and Others.
Posting: IRS/BS-19, Director (OPS), Directorate of Internal Audit (Inland Revenue), Islamabad. The Board observed that the officer has a low score on his quantified performance which is in sync with his general reputation as an officer of average competence. The Board arrived at a consensus that the officer is reputed to be an officer of average competence and questionable integrity. The Board expressed reservations 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 reached at the conclusion that Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Shakeel is not fit to discharge responsibilities that he will have to shoulder if promoted. 3 W.P. No. 3173 of 2025 Mirza Nasir Ali v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division and Others.
Posting: IRS/BS-19, Director (OPS), Directorate of Law, Karachi. The Board observed that the officer has acceptable score on his quantified performance which is in sync with his general reputation as an officer of average competence. The Board arrived at a consensus that the officer is reputed to be an officer of average competence and questionable integrity. The Board expressed reservations 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 arrived at the conclusion that Mirza Nasir Ali is not fit to discharge responsibilities that he will have to shoulder if promoted. 4 W.P. No. 3260 of 2025 Muhammad Muti ur Rehman Mumtaz v. Establishment A consensus emerged that the officer has mixed reputation vis-a-vis his financial integrity; thus, there is a need to further watch the performance of
9 W.P.’s No. 2409/2025, 3171/2024, 3172,3173,3260 to 3267/2025,3643,3644,4587,4999,5543,5544, 1221,4563 & 1286 of 2025.
CATEGORY B SR. NO. TITLE OF PETITION & POSTING AT THE TIME OF IMPUGNED DECISION REASONS FOR IMPUGNED DECISION Division through its Secretary and others. Posting: IRS/BS-19, Secretary, Federal Board of Revenue (Hq), Islamabad. the officer before he can be considered for promotion to higher grade. The Board, therefore, decided to recommend the officer for deferment on performance watch till the next CSB in line with Rule 7(d) of the Civil Servants Promotion (BS-18 to BS-21) Rules, 2019. 5 W.P. No. 3261 of 2025 Wilayat Khan v. Establishment Division through its Secretary and Another.
Posting: IRS/BS-19, Commissioner (OPS), Regional Tax Office, Rawalpindi. The Board further noted that he has been assessed “Good” against the better available option of “Very Good” and “Excellent” in TERs of MCMC. The Board observed that the officer has a low sore on his quantified performance which is in sync with his general reputation as an officer of average competence. The Board arrived at a consensus that the officer is reputed to be an officer of average competence and questionable integrity. The Board expressed reservations 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 reached at the conclusion that Mr. Wilayat Khan is not fit to discharge responsibilities that he will have to shoulder if promoted. 6 W.P. No. 3262 of 2025 Syed Ali Adnan Zaidi v. Establishment Division through its Secretary and others.
Posting: IRS/BS-19, Chief (OPS) (Sales Tax-Operations), FBR (Hq), Islamabad. The Board observed that the officer has acceptable score on his quantified performance which is not in sync with his general reputation as an officer of average competence. The Board arrived at a consensus that the officer is reputed to be an officer of average competence and questionable integrity. The Board expressed reservations 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 reached at the conclusion that Mr. Ali Adnan Zaidi is not fit to discharge responsibilities that he will have to shoulder if promoted. 7 W.P. No. 3263 of 2025 Muhammad Zahid v. Establishment Division through its Secretary and others.
Posting: IRS/BS-19, Commissioner (OPS), (Appeals-II), Islamabad. A consensus emerged that the officer has mixed reputation vis-a-vis his financial integrity; thus, there is a need to further watch the performance of the officer before he can be considered for promotion to higher grade. The Board, therefore, decided to recommend the officer for deferment on performance watch till the next CSB in line with Rule 7(d) of the Civil Servants Promotion (BS-18 to BS-21) Rules, 2019. 8 W.P. No. 3264 of 2025 Mumtaz Ali Bohio v. Establishment Division through its Secretary and others.
The Board further noted that he has been assessed “Good” against the better available option of “Very Good”…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.