Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: Major (IHC)
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Major (R) Bashir Ahmed etc. vs FOP etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as Major (IHC). In this matter between Major (R) Bashir Ahmed etc. and FOP etc, 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: 25-SEP-2025 CASE NO: Writ Petition-3710-2024 CITATION: 2025 IHC 232582 PARTIES: Major (R) Bashir Ahmed etc. VS FOP etc LAW / SECTION: under section 23B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. SUBJECT: Service, Promotion REMARKS: A BPS-18 Officer of PAS files this writ against his supersession and promotion of juniors. ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition No. 3710 of 2024
Maj (Retd.) Bashir Ahmed and another Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division and others
Petitioner by: M/s Riasat Ali Azad and Zafar Hussain, Advocates.
Respondent No.1 by: Mian Muhammad Faisal Irfan, DAG along with Saeed Akhtar Khan, S.O and Zeeshan Zaidi, S.O. Establishment Division.
Respondents No.2 to 19 Ex-parte.
Assisted by: Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi, Judicial Law Clerk.
Date of Hearing: 03.09.2025
INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J:- Through the instant petition, the petitioners have impugned the Notifications No. F.1/3/2024/E-5 (PAS) of Establishment Division dated 13.08.2024 (“Impugned Notifications”), whereby juniors to the petitioners i.e. respondents No. 2 to 19 were promoted against vacant posts of BS-19 in Pakistan Administrative Service (“PAS”) and the Establishment Division’s letters No. F.1/2/2024-CP-III dated 24.09.2024 (“Impugned Letters”), whereby the petitioners were informed regarding their supersession, respectively. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners joined PAS in BS-18 through the Federal Public Service Commission in 2015, and in 2023 they successfully completed the mandatory Mid-Career Management Course (“MCMC”) at the National Institute of Management. In the meeting of the Departmental 2 W.P No.3710/2024.
Selection Board (“DSB”) held on 06–07.08.2024 for the promotion of PAS officers from BS-18 to BS-19, the petitioners were considered but were superseded through the Impugned Letters, on the ground of failing to secure the required threshold of 65 marks, with the further intimation that no representation shall lie in matters relating to determination of fitness for promotion. Meanwhile, vide Impugned Notifications, respondents No. 2 to 19, who were admittedly junior to the petitioners in BS-18 as per the seniority list of PAS officers dated 21.03.2024 (placing petitioner No.1 at serial 25 and petitioner No.2 at serial 23, whereas the private respondents were placed at serial Nos.35, 38-40, 44-45, 47-48, 50-55, and 57), were promoted to BS-19 by respondent No.1. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners submitted representations on 07.10.2024 before respondent No.1 seeking an objective review and reconsideration of their cases for promotion through a special meeting of the DSB but no consideration or response was made. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that throughout the petitioners’ careers no disciplinary proceedings have ever been initiated against them under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020 (“E&D Rules 2020”) nor have they ever been issued an explanation letter, show-cause notice or subjected to any penalty for misconduct, inefficiency or corruption by any Investigation Agency; that the marks awarded by the DSB in the objective assessment form do not correlate with the petitioners high performance evaluations, the outstanding grading in their PERs or even the very parameters under Schedule-IV of the Civil Servants Promotion (BS-18 to BS-21) Rules, 2019 (“Promotion Rules, 2019”); that the DSB superseded the petitioners without affording them an opportunity of hearing or confronting them with any adverse material, in utter disregard of Rule 23 of the Promotion Rules, 2019, which mandates disclosure of reasons for supersession, whereas the Impugned Letters merely cite failure to cross the threshold of 65 marks without explaining the basis of adverse marking under the ten parameters enumerated in Schedule-IV of the Promotion Rules, 2019. The learned counsel also argued that the DSB and respondent No.1 were bound to act within the four corners of the law but their actions exhibit a capricious and unfettered exercise of discretion, in violation of section 24A of 3 W.P No.3710/2024.
the General Clauses Act, 1897 and contrary to Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”), which guarantee fairness, reasonableness and due process. 4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Attorney General on behalf of respondent No.1 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and contended that the petitioners are civil servants, therefore, their terms and conditions are governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and under Article 212 of the Constitution jurisdiction of this Court is barred. Lastly, he submitted that u/s 23-B of the Civil Servant Act, 1973 only Federal Service Tribunal (“FST”) has jurisdiction to hear the cases of the civil servants. 5. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 6. While considering the background of the petitions, the grounds raised by the parties and question of law involved, the following question needs adjudication by this Court i.e. Whether the DSB failed to give meaningful consideration to the petitioners’ promotion, coupled with its omission to record or communicate plausible reasons for superseding the petitioners? 7. Before entering upon the merits of the matter, it is necessary to first address the objection as to maintainability raised on behalf of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FST and that no vested right to promotion accrues to a civil servant. However, it is well settled that the jurisdiction to resolve questions regarding fitness and suitability of a civil servant to be considered for promotion does not vest in the FST. The Honourable Supreme Court has consistently held that the bar contained in section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973 does not extend to questions concerning the fitness of a civil servant to hold a particular post and that in such matters the High Court is the proper forum to adjudicate upon such matters in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. In the case of Orya Maqbool Jan vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others, (2014 SCMR 817), it was held that jurisdiction of High Court is not barred, where the issue pertains to fitness for promotion. Similarly, in Secretary 4 W.P No.3710/2024.
Establishment Division vs. Aftab Ahmed Maneka, (2015 SCMR 1006), the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is not ousted in matters relating to promotion of civil servants to higher grades. Moroever, in I.A. Sherwani and others vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division, Islamabad and others, (1991 SCMR 1041), it was held that promotion does not fall within the terms and conditions of service and consequently, the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199 is not attracted. 8. Moreover, the petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court upon the violation of the right to fair and just consideration for promotion. This is a right independent of the right to promotion itself. It is trite law that the right to be considered for promotion, fairly and justly, is a right distinct from promotion itself. This principle of law applies with full force in the present case and has been affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the Tariq Aziz-ud-Din case reported as (2010 SCMR 1301). Therefore, this Court is vested with jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to judicially review the process and the manner, in which discretion is exercised by the DSB in recommending the supersession of an officer under consideration of promotion. 9. This Court shall now address the question framed. It is apparent from the record that the meeting of DSB held on 6th and 7th August, 2024 recommended petitioner No. 1 for supersession with the following remarks:- “The Board deliberated upon the service profile, TER/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 has a reputation of having questionable financial integrity. It was also noted with concern that the officer has been facing serious allegations of facilitating cross border smuggling of various commodities and having questionable financial integrity. The Board was of the view that an officer of such questionable integrity and limited professional competence would not be able to serve the public interest in a befitting manner……..After detailed deliberations, the Board concluded that Mr. Bashir Ahmed Maj. (R) is 5 W.P No.3710/2024.
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 judged Bashir Ahmed Maj. (R) as a Category- C officer and awarded him 04 marks. The officer failed to meet the required threshold of 65 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.” 10. Similarly petitioner No. 2 was superseded with the following remarks:- “The Board deliberated upon the service profile, 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 has a reputation of having questionable financial integrity. It was also noted with concern that the officer has been facing serious allegations of facilitating cross border smuggling of various commodities and having questionable financial integrity. The Board was of the view that an officer of such questionable integrity and limited professional competence would not be able to serve the public interest in a befitting manner………After detailed deliberations, the Board concluded that Mr. Bashir Ahmed Maj. (R)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 judged Mr. Muhammad Alyas Maj. (R) as a Category-C officer and awarded him 05 marks. The officer failed to meet the required threshold of 65 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.” 11. It is manifest from the minutes of the meeting as well as the comments furnished by respondent No.1 that blemish upon the petitioners pertained to their financial integrity coupled with alleged cross-border smuggling, however, the record demonstrates that such allegations are unsupported by any tangible material and finds no reflection in the service record of petitioners. It was laid down in Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi's case reported as 2003 PLC (C.S.) 503 that the consideration of an officer for promotion is to be based not only on the relevant law and rules but also on some tangible material, which could be lawfully taken into consideration. The governing 6 W.P No.3710/2024.
framework for promotions is embodied in the Promotion Rules, 2019, which prescribes not only the procedure but also the criteria upon which the fitness of an officer for promotion is to be assessed. 12. Schedule-IV of the Promotion Rules, 2019 contains the quantification formula, which is intended to structure discretion of Selection Board to ensure just and fair treatment to contenders for promotion. Under Schedule-IV of the Promotion Rules, 2019 the DSB in the objective assessment form scores the civil servants out of 30 under the following ten parameters:- “i. Output and quality of work ii. Variety and relevance of experience iii. Professional expertise iv. Personality Profile v. Conduct, Discipline and Behavior vi. Leadership vii. Estimated Potential for Middle/Higher Management viii. Integrity / General reputation / Perception ix. Commitment to Public Service x. Teamwork” 13. The breakdown of these marks shows that out of 3 marks that could be awarded by the DSB to both the petitioners’ integrity/general reputation/perception, they were given zero marks. In other words, the DSB, in its collective wisdom, came to the conclusion that the petitioners had no integrity. Schedule-IV of the Promotion Rules, 2019 provides that while giving marks for an officer’s integrity, general reputation, perception, the DSB has to take into consideration the officer’s professional ethics / conduct on the basis of PERs / TERs and the opinion of the Board must be based on the dossier / documentary evidence. However, not a single document has been brought on record by respondent No.1 to show that the petitioners’ integrity was questionable, let alone justify awarding them zero marks under the said head. The petitioners’ PERs throughout their service consistently record them as persons of unimpeachable integrity and at no stage of their career they have been proceeded against under the E&D Rules, 2020, nor has any adverse remark, inquiry or reference been initiated by the competent authority or any investigating agency. In these circumstances, the award of zero marks by the DSB under the head of “Integrity/General Reputation/Perception” rests upon 7 W.P No.3710/2024.
nothing more than conjecture and unsubstantiated perception, which is impermissible in law. Promotion under the Promotion Rules, 2019 is to be grounded in objective assessment of the documentary record, including PERs, TERs and service dossier. To disregard this material and instead substitute it with vague impressions or undisclosed considerations is to act in direct violation of the Promotion Rules, 2019. 14. This Court observes that the petitioners’ record spanning years, in the normal course, ought to have weighed heavily in their favour and should have precluded any adverse inference against them on the score of integrity. To deny promotion on the basis of such unfounded assumptions amounts to arbitrary exercise of discretion and a course of action consistently deprecated by the superior Courts, which have repeatedly held that when administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are conferred discretion affecting valuable rights, such discretion must be exercised reasonably, fairly and in accordance with law. Supersession based on vague and unrecorded perceptions not only undermines the settled law but also strikes at the root of fairness, transparency and meritocracy in the civil service. 15. The Courts have consistently held that the minutes of the meetings of the DSB as well as its recommendations to defer or supersede any officer, must contain an express reference to the material that led the Board to entertain doubts regarding the officer’s integrity. Moreover, where such material has not been disclosed to the officer at any stage, the principles of natural justice mandate that he must first be confronted therewith, so as to afford him an opportunity to explain or disprove its accuracy. Adopting this process may enable the officer concerned to dispel the misgivings of the DSB and demonstrate the falsity or irrelevance of the material relied upon. Failure to confront the officer with such material amounts to a clear violation of the settled principle of audi alteram partem and any departure therefrom would suffice to vitiate even the most solemn of proceedings. It is trite law that audi alteram partem has to be applied in all judicial and non-judicial proceedings notwithstanding that a right of hearing has not been expressly provided by the statute governing the proceedings. Reference in this regard may be made to the law laid down in the cases of Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust 8 W.P No.3710/2024.
through Chairman and others vs. Mst. Qaisra Elahi and others, (2005 SCMR 678) and Raziuddin vs. Chairman, Pakistan Airlines Corporation and 2 others, (PLD 1992 SC 531). 16. It has was held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Muhammad Farooq Chauhan vs. Province of Punjab, (PLD 1987 SC 271) that even the adverse un-communicated remarks cannot be taken into consideration to decline the promotion to an officer. Dilating on this, this Court observes that a challenge to a civil servant’s integrity is a very serious allegation and in such an eventuality it is necessary to call his explanation, however, the same was not communicated to the petitioners rather they were superseded through the Impugned Letters on the ground of failing to secure the required threshold of 65 marks, with the further intimation that no representation shall lie in matters relating to determination of fitness for promotion. 17. Notably, if any member of the DSB disagree with the financial integrity of the officers in their ACRs, he must record as to why he is not satisfied with the same with specific reference to the material, which contradicts the reports as the same would go against the age-old maxim nemo fit repente turpissimus (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden). This maxim signifies that integrity, whether sound or tainted, reveals itself over time through a consistent course of conduct. Thus, where an officer’s record is marked by unblemished service and outstanding evaluations, any sudden departure imputing dishonesty must rest on clear, specific, and credible evidence. To disregard such a consistent service record without cogent reasons based upon credible material would amount to imputing dishonesty in a manner that is arbitrary. 18. It is simply incomprehensible that a civil servant should be superseded on the ground of doubtful financial integrity, yet not proceeded against by the department in accordance with the prescribed rules. If the integrity of an officer is genuinely in question, the natural and logical course available to the competent authority is to initiate disciplinary proceedings so that the matter may be adjudicated in accordance with the law. The absence of such 9 W.P No.3710/2024.
proceedings, despite a finding adverse enough to deny promotion, renders the action suspicious. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that such adverse remarks or assessments are nothing more than a colourable exercise of discretion, wherein a civil servant is momentarily portrayed as an officer of doubtful integrity for the limited purpose of denying him his due progression in service, only for that supposed blemish to vanish thereafter without any formal inquiry or punishment. Such a practice is not only inconsistent with the principles of natural justice but also undermines the settled law that service rights cannot be curtailed on the basis of unsubstantiated or ephemeral considerations. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the case of the petitioners for promotion was not considered in accordance with law. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed. The Impugned Letters superseding the petitioners are set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the petitioners for promotion from the date they were superseded, strictly in an impartial, reasonable and objective manner keeping in view their merit as borne out from their respective service record and the law laid down on the matter. Respondent No.1 shall consider the case of the petitioners for promotion within two months or in its next meeting, whichever is earlier.
(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) JUDGE
Announced in open Court on 25.09.2025
JUDGE
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
R.Anjam