Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ORYA MAQBOOL ABBASI VS Respondent: FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary JUDGMENT
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Sh. Azmat Saeed Title:ORYA MAQBOOL ABBASI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary
JUDGMENT
Reported As: 2014 SCMR 817 Result: Order accordingly Judgment JUDGMENT ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for the enforcement of fundamental rights, involving question of public importance of outlining an objective criteria for promotions to make the civil service rewarding for honest officers and free from political pressures. 2. The grievance of the petitioner, as narrated in the petition, is non-recommendation of his name, along with so many other officers, for promotion from BPS 20 to 21, by the Central Selection Board (CSB), in its meeting held on 11-14-2-2013 and 27-2-2013, who according to his version were eligible for promotion but their cases were deferred or postponed for want of transparent objective criteria embodied in principle of rewarding honest officers instead of penalizing them by withholding their due rights contrary to Articles 3, 9 and 14 of the Constitution. In this regard, he has made the following prayer:-- "(a) A free and fair enquiry of the assets of the Civil Servants in promotion zone and their families by comparing with their assets at the time when they joined the service. Their life style, expense on children education, expenses on children marriages, foreign tours etc., should be taken into account to measure the level of corruption and honestly. The enquiry should be made by an independent body or commission constituted by the honourable Supreme Court. The assets of all the Civil Servants should be open for public scrutiny. (b) To check the political affiliations and to make the bureaucracy free and fair from political affiliations; efficiency should be linked with the level of independence an officer has secured during his service. The entire career records of each Civil Servant should be scrutinized before promotion,
---
## Page 2
to check as who enjoyed better posting in which political party's tenure. This will certainly present a clear picture of a majority of civil servants divided/loyal with different political groups, leaving a few independent and honourable officers aside." 3. Brief but relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner, Orya Maqbool Abbasi, joined government service on 18-10-1984 in the District Management Group (now "Pakistan Administrative Service" (PAS)). He was promoted to BPS 18 in the year 1990, BPS 19 in the year 1998 and BPS 20 in the year 2006. For the purpose of promotion of the petitioner along with others from grade 20 to 21, a meeting of Central Selection Board (CSB) was held on 3-10-2011, but the petitioner among others was not recommended for promotion. As in the instant case, a larger question involving the fundamental right of government servants to be promoted from Grade 20 to 21 was involved, therefore, being aggrieved from the decision of the CSB, left-over candidates invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts, including Islamabad High Court by instituting Writ Petition No,3483 of 2011 wherein orders were passed restraining CSB from undertaking further proceedings and the writ petition was ultimately disposed of. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "In this view of the matter instant writ petitions are allowed, formula of award of 15 marks on the discretion of CSB is declared as illegal, superficial, unconstitutional, against the dictums of court of apex, non-transparent, result of adamant approach, whimsical, sham, unprecedented, infringeinent to constitutional guarantees and principle of natural justice, therefore, same is set aside. The respondent Establishment Division is directed to implement the judgment of honourable Supreme Court, delivered in Civil Petitions Nos. 1083, 58 to 60, 443 and 444 of 2010, in is letter and - spirit and restructure the formula of award of 15 marks, is accordance with guidelines provided therein. All the meetings of CSB, therefore, are declared unconstitutional without jurisdiction and unjust which are held to be of no consequence'. 4. It is to be pointed out that in another case Liaqat Ali Chughtai v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Railways (PLD 2013 Lahore 413) the learned Lahore High Court on setting aside some of the recommendations of CSB, issued directions to formulate a well thought out Objective Criteria in accordance with the Revised Promotion Policy and consider the cases of the petitioners (before the High Court) and private respondents (therein) afresh. 5. As a result whereof, two meetings of the CSB were held on 11th to 14th February, 2013 and 27th February, 2013, to consider and recommend promotions of officers from Grade 20 to Grade 21 of All Pakistan United Grades (APUG). Break up whereof is noted in the summary dated 20th November, 2012, moved by Secretary Establishment for the approval of the Prime Minister vide following paras of the summary:- (3) To compute the vacancies for promotion of PAS officers to BS-20 and BS-21, the following factors have been taken into account: (i) Number of posts as per cadre strength in the Provinces. (ii) Difference between cadre strength and staffing position. (iii) Anticipatory vacancies due to retirements till 31-1-2013. (4) Based on the above factors, the following vacancy position in respect of PAS has been reckoned for promotion of PAS officers to BS-21 and BS-20:-- {{TABLE}} BS-21 BS-20 22 68 {{TABLE}} 6. It is to be noted that 22 vacancies were got approved on 27th November, 2012. A second summary was moved on 9th January, 2013 and 37 vacancies were got approved from the Prime
---
## Page 3
Minister on 24th January, 2013. Again a third summary dated 30th January, 2013 was forwarded for approval of the Prime Minister, in view of the following para:-- "34. Keeping the above factors into account, the vacancy position in respect of PAS/BS-21 has been worked out and is added at Annexure-XIII, which comes to 56 against the earlier 37 vacancies already approved. Similarly, the revised vacancy position for prothotion to BS-21 in Secretariat Group comes to 31 against 28 already approved. As such 2/3rd share for Secretariat Group officers comes to 21 against 19 already approved and 1/3rd vacancies i,e, 10 would go to other Groups/Services against 09 already approved." ' And Prime Minister gave its approval on 1st February, 2013. Breakup whereof is as under:-- {{TABLE}} Annex-XIII REVISED VACANCY POSITION FOR PROMOTION OF PAS OFFICERS FROM BS-20 TO BS-21 (A) Departments/Organizations of the Federal Government where manning is done by the Establishment Division Number of BS-21 Vacancy Positions Prime Minister. Secretariat 01 Wafaqi Mohtasib 02 FBR 01 NPF 01 NDMA 01 TCP 01 NHA 01 PMDC 01 Agriculture Policy Institute 01 National School of Public Policy 01 (B) Retirement of BS-22 officers belonging to PAS by 30-4-2013 05 (C) Retirement of PAS/BS-21 officer by 30-4-2013 01 (D) Additional BS-21 position reported by Provincial Governments 02 Already approved vacancies 37 Total 56 {{TABLE}} 7. A perusal of above breakup makes it clear that 19 vacancies were added in the revised list, object is understandable, namely, to accommodate maximum persons from PAS by promoting them to Grade 21 against 22.+ 56 + 10 =88 vacancies, 8. It is an admitted position that against above vacancies, candidatures of the ,officers out of the seniority list of Pakistan Administrative Service (PAS) serial No,133 were examined by CSB in its meetings held on 1 1 th to 14th February and on 27th February, 2013. As a result whereof 49 candidates were deferred, including the petitioner. In his case following reasons have been assigned by Secretary Establishment in his concise statement:-- "Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September and 3rd October, 2011 for the reason that professionally not sound and unfit to hold higher responsibility. The Board now noted that said supersession was not supported by his PERs record particularly for the last five years which, inter alia, rated him as outstanding/very good with integrity as above board. He did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after his last supersession. His PER for the year 2011 was required to be earned subsequent to his supersession in terms of para 1(a)(iv) of Revised Promotion Policy, 2007. The Board decided to defer him. ' He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of complete 12 months, required under Policy." 9. Surprisingly, despite realizing that petitioner's PER's had not supported his supersession of 23rd, 24th September and 3rd October, 2011, as he is an outstanding officer and also very good integrity
---
## Page 4
wise, but he was again deferred. Perhaps, he did not have PER for the year 2012-13 though he had special report in his favour and according to revised policy dated 11th January, 2013, special report for the period of deficiency, earned in the next calendar year would be taken into account to complete the 12 month's requirement for the purpose. 10. It is to be observed that not only the petitioner but few other candidates were also subjected to the following arbitrary and discriminatory treatment:-- ' OFFICERS RECOMMENDED FOR DEFERMENT FOR PROMOTION OF BS-20 OFFICERS OF PAKISTAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (PAS) TO BS-21- {{TABLE}} SI. NO. SEN. NO. NAME OF OFFICERS REASONS 6 -14 ' Mr. Muhammad Rashid Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September and 3rd October, 2011 for the reason that his integrity was not above board and professionally not sound. The Board now noted that said supersession was not supported by his PERs record particularly for the last five years which, inter alia, rated him as very good/good with integrity as honest, reliable and above board. He did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after his last supersession. His PER for the year X11 was required to be earned subsequent to his supersession in terms of para 1(a)(iv) of Revisdd Promotion Policy 2007. The Board decided to defer him. -{{TABLE}} He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of complete 12 months after supersession, as required under Policy. 7 17 Mr. Muhammad Rizwan Taqi Capt. (R) Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September and 3rd October, 2011 for the reason that his score was below required threshold. The Board now noted that said supersession was not supported by his PERs record particularly for the last five years which, inter Witt, rated him as very good/good with integrity as honest, reliable and above board. He did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after his last supersession. His PER for the year 2011 was required to be earned subsequent to his supersession in terms of para 1(a)(iv) of Revised Promotion Policy 2007., The Board decided to defer him. He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of complete 12 months after supersession, as required under Policy. 8 19 Mian M. Zulqarnain Aamir Maj. (R) Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September and 3rd October, 2011 for the reason that most unreliable, professionally not sound and connected with agencies. The Board now noted that said supersession was not supported by his FBRs record particularly for the last five years which, inter alia, rated him as very good/good with integrity as honest, reliable and above board. He did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after his last supersession. His PER for the year 2011 was required to be earned subsequent to his supersession in terms of para 1(a)(iv) of Revised Promotion Policy 2007. The Board decided to defer him. He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of complete 12 months after supersession, as required under Policy. 10 25 Mr, Manzar Hayat Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September and 3rd October, 2011 for the reason that thoroughly corrupt and professionally not sound. The Board now ,noted that 'said supersession was not
---
## Page 5
supported by his PERs record particularly for the last five years which, inter alia, rated him as very good/good with integrity as honest, 'reliable and above board. He did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after his last, supersession. His PER for the year 2011 was required to be earned subsequent to his supersession in terms of para 1(a)(iv) of Revised Promotion Policy 200'7. The Board decided to defer him. - He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of complete 12 months after supersession, as required under Policy. #TBS -{{TABLE}} #TBE 12 29 Mr. Iftikhar Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September and Hussain 3rd October, 2011 for the reason that morally and professionally not sound. The Board now noted that said supersession was not supported by his PERs record particularly for the last five years which, inter alia, rated him as very good/good with integrity as honest, reliable and above board. He did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after his last supersession. His PER for the year 2011 was required to be earned subsequent to his supersession in terms of para 1 (a)(iv) of Revised Promotion Policy 2007. The Board decided to defer him. He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of complete 12 months after supersession, as required under policy. {{TABLE}} ' Whereas, to achieve the object for which 88 vacancies were created following officers were promoted:-- OFFICERS RECOMMENDED FOR PROMOTION OF BS-20 OFFICERS OF PAKISTAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (PAS) TO BS-21-{{TABLE}} SI. No SEN NO NAME OF OFFICERS TOTAL SCORE OF PER AND TRAINING AWARD OF MARKS BY CSB TOTAL SCORE CATE- GORY MARKS 1. 1. Mr. Farooq Ahmed Khan 66.98 B 10 76.98 2. 2. Mr. Tariq Javed Afridi Maj. (R) 61.46 B 15/24 76.46 3. 5. Mr. Abdul Jalil 63.21 A 12 75.21 4. 8. Mr. Rashid Bashir Mazari Capt. (R) 69.57' B 10 79.57 5. 11. Mr. Tipu Mahabet Khan 69.64 A 11 80.64 6. 12. Mr. Athar Hussain Khan 69.71 B 10 79.71 7. 13. Mr. Aftab Habib 66.48 B 10 76.48 8. 15. Mr. Aijaz Ahmed 66.65 B 10 76.65 9. 20. Mr. Ahmed Yar Khan Sq. Ldr.
---
## Page 6
77.12 A 12 89.12 10. 21. Mr. Tariq Masud Capt (R) 67.15 B 10 77.15 11. 23. Mr. All Zaheer Hamra 60.48 B 15/24 75.48 12. 24. Mr. Shujat Ali 74.97 A 12 86.97 13. 26. Mr. Aftab Ahmed Maneka 68.31 B 10 78.31 14. 27. Mr. UsmanAli 64.51 A 11 75.51 15. 30. . Mr. MuhammadAslamHayat . 71.38 B 10 81.38 16. , 31. Mr.JavaidNisarSyed 68.66 B 09 77.66 .17. 33. Mr.MohsinS.Haqqani 72.83 B 10 82.83 18. 34. Mr.Ijaz ali Khan 77.24 A 11 88.24 19. 35. Mr.M.TariqMahmood Pirzada 67.30 B 15/24 82.30 20. 37. Mr.Shoaib ahmad Siddiqui -74.25 A 11 85.25- 21. 38. Mr.ZahidSaeedC,apt.(R) 73.94 A. 12 85.94 22. 41. Dr. HammadUwaisAgha 68.64 B 10 78.64 23. 42. Mr. Altaf ezid khan 71.71 B 10 81.71 24. 43. Mr.ShahSahib 65.69 B 10. 75.69 25. 45. Mr. Safiad ahmad . 75.34 A 11 86.34 26. 46. Mrs arbab muammmad arif 76.28 A 12 88.28 27.. 49. Mr.Hassan qbal 75.35 A 12 87.35 28. 50, Mr. ImrnAfzalCheema 72.49 B 10 82.49 29. 51. Mr sardar nawaz Sukhera 80.91 A 12 92.91 30. 52. Mrs.YasninMasood 70.25 A 12 82.25 31. 53. Mr saqib salreem 68.67 B 10 76.67 32. 54. Mr muzzaffar saleem 70.80 B 10 80.80
---
## Page 7
33. 55. Dr.Allah baksh 69.09 B 10 79.09 34. 56. Mr.Muhammad ijaz 70.14 B 10 80.14 35. 58. Mr. Mohammad Younus Dagha 80.4(1 A 12 92.40,.. 36.. 59. Mr.Naveed kamran 74.35 A 11 85.35 37. 60. Mr.ShmailAhmed 76.98 A 11 87.98 38. 6i. Mr. Muhammad Misbah 70.22 B 10 80.22 39. 62. Mr.Mukhtar hussain 7..40 A o11 84.40 40. 64. Mr. Aurangzebhaque 69.41 B 10 79.41 41. 66. Mr. MuhammadTariqHayat 69'.00 - B 10 79.00 42. 67. Dr. SyedSohailAhaf 73.80 A 12 ' 88.80 43. 68. Mr.GhulamQadirKhan 69.25 B 10 79.25' 44. 69. Maj. Rizwan Ullah Beg 72.11 A 11 ,83.11 45. 70. Mr. Awn suleman Khan 78.68 A 12 90.68 46. 71. Mr. Abid Ali Sq. Ldr. (R) 67.65 B 10 77.65 47. 72. Mr. Muhammad Ifran Elahi Sq. I-dr. (R) 73.82 A 12 85.82 48. 73. Mr. Amjad Ali Toor Sq. Ldr. (R) 73.71 - A 12- 85.71 49. 74. Mr. Qaiser Majeed Malik Maj. (R) 72.50 A 12 84.50 50. 75. Mr. Malik Tahir Sarfraz Awan Capt. (R) 74.64 A 11 85.64 51. 76. Mr. Atta Muhammad Khan Capt. (R) 73.60 B 10 83.60 52. 77. Mr. Fazed Asghar Capt. (R) 72.85 B 10 82.85 53. 78. Mr. Amjad Shahid Afridi 70.66 B 10 80.66 54. 79. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed 70.38 A 12. 82.38 55. 80. Mr. Yousaf Naseem Khokar 78.76 A 12 90.76
---
## Page 8
56. 81. Mr. Allam ud Din Bullo 72.05 A 11 83.05 57. 82. Dr. Syed Hyder Ali 7.71 A 11 84.71 58. 84. Dr. Fida Muhammad Wazir 70.45 B 10 80.45 59. 85. Mr. Rizwan Malik 74.42 A 11 84.42 60. 86. Mr. Imran Ahmed 72.84 B 10 82.84 61. 87. Mr. Muhammad Ashraf 7.82 B 10 83.82 62. 88. Ms. Shaista Sohail 77.20 A 12 89.20 63. 89. Ms. Rabiya Adila Javeri 77.49 A 12 89.49 64. 90. Mr. Muhammad Ilyas 70.75 B 10 80.75 65. 92. Mr. Mummtaz Ali Shah 74.61 A 12 86.61 66. 93. Mr. Jamil Ahmed 70.51 B 10 80.51 67. 94. Mr. Muhammad Asif 73.36 A 12 85.36 68. 95. Mr. Sheikh Zia ul Haq 71.36 A 11 82.36 69. 96. Mr. Muhammad Javed Hanif 76.78 A 12 88.78 70. 102. Mr. Rashid Ahmed 67.55 A 18/24 75.55 71. 103. Mr. Shoaib Mir Mernon 78.98 A 12 90.98 72. 107. Mr. Jalal Sikandar Sultan 77.28 A 11 88.28 73. 118. Mr. Babar Hassan Bharwana 68.56 B 10 78.56 74. 119. Mr. Irnran Nastr Khan 67.99 B 10 77.99 -{{TABLE}} 75. 112. Mr. Shfaqut ur Rehrnan Ranjha 71.61 B 10 81.61 76. 118. Mr. Tariq Feroze Khan 66.92 B 12/24 78.92 77. 119. Mr. Munir Ahmed 60.70 B 15/24 75.70 78. 125. Mr. Nasrullah Khan 65.72 B 10/24 75.72 79.
---
## Page 9
132. Dr. Fazlullah Pechuho 77.30 A 11 88.30 80. 133. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed 69.82 B 10 79.82 {{TABLE}} 11. It has been informed that against originally created 22 vacancies of Grade 21 approved on 27th November, 2012, officers noted in the seniority list, of PAS at serial Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 41 were accommodated in the meeting held in February, 2013. ' It is to be noted that Messrs Liaqat Ali Chughtai, Syed Hassan Mehmood, Imtiaz Hussain Rizvi and Ahsan mehmood Mian whose cases were remanded by the learned Lahore High Court vide judgment noted above were not included in the above lists. 12. It may be observed that the manner in which 88 vacancies were created are self explanatory; otherwise object of accommodating junior officers, who were at serial Nos.132 and 133, could not have been possible. 13. A bird eye view of the above promotee officers suggest that mostly. Senior officers were recommended for deferment, reasons of the same have already been noted above. In this manner, 80 out of 133 officers were promoted on the recommendation of CSB. 14. When the matter was taken up, Mrs. Seema Najeeb and Mr. Iqbal A. Bablani jointly filed an application for impleadment as party through Arshad Ali Ch. Advocate-on-Record, wherein it has been stated that applicants joined the Government Service on 22-10-1985 in the then. DMG in BPS 17, and are now placed at Sr. 45 and 60 respectively in the seniority list of PAS Officers in BPS 20. It has been further stated in the application that PERs are due on 31st January of each year. 'As such, at the date of the meeting even PER for the year 2012 were available with Establishment Division for consideration. It was asserted that no person can be condemned for fault of others and it was for others to furnish PERs by 31st January each year. They argued that, the promotion of both the applicants was deferred for no fault on their part, as their PERs for the year 2012 were available with the Establishment Division at the time of both the CSB Meetings held on 11-2-2013 and 27-2-2013. 15. Another application for impleadment as party vide C.M.A. No,4298 of 2013 was filed on behalf of Hafiz Muhammad Abdul Hayee, an ex-officer of in Administrative Services serving in BPS-20. 16. More than one concise statements, including C.M.As. Nos.3358 of 2013, 4431 of 2013 and 4445 of 2013 on behalf of Establishment Division and C.M.A. No, 3989 of 2013 on behalf of former secretary establishment, have been filed. 17. Mr. Taimur Azmat Osman, former Secretary Establishment filed his reply through C.M.A. No,3989 of 2013; relevant paras therefrom are reproduced hereinbelow for reference:-- "(8) The CSB in its decisions is guided by the common wisdom and recommendations of the presenting Secretary, but option of the presenting Secretary may not be agreed by the CSB. The cases of all officers who were superseded in October, 2011, including Mr. Orya Maqbool Abbasi were presented by me before the Board. (9) The case of the petitioner was deferred not on the basis of record, but on technicalities relating to the eligibility criteria for consideration for promotion. Under revised Promotion Policy 2007 read with earlier Policy of 1985 ""an officer superseded earlier shall be considered after earning PER for full one year. In case the officer has earned part PER for less than 12. Months in a calendar year then a special report for the period of deficiency earned in next calendar year shall be taken into account to complete the requirement of 12 *months for this purpose". (10) Mr. Orya Maqbool Abbasi had not earned a full PER of one year after supersession at the time when the matter was considered by the Board since PER up till December, 2011 were being considered. He had a shortfall of around 1-1/2 month in his PER for the year 2011. However, a special report for completing mandatory one calendar year was received in the Establishment Division and presented before the Board. As such the requirements of the policy quoted above were
---
## Page 10
completed. However, the Board in its collective wisdom decided not to consider the petitioner as well as number of officers of the PAS with similar requirements because, in their view point, they should be even handed with all other services as they had not considered cases of similar nature of other services. The Board thought that they should not give special dispensation to the PAS officers. On my insistence as presenting Secretary, the Board agreed to at least reserve equal number of vacancies for officers of similar category of PAS, including the petitioner, for consideration of their cases in the next CSB's meeting." 18. Similarly, another concise statement has been filed on behalf of Establishment Division through C.M.A. No,3358 of 2013. Relevant paras therefrom are reproduced hereinbelow:-- "(4) One view was that the said Special Reports for the period of deficiency (part or whole 2012) be obtained and cases of officers concerned be submitted in next session of CSB's meeting. The other view was that the proposed Special Reports pertaining to part/whole of 2012 should not be considered mainly for the reason that the entire proceedings had taken place on the basis of PER record upto 2011. The Board advised that requisite Special Reports in the said cases be obtained. Final decision for consideration OR otherwise to be taken in the next session. On 27-2-2013, the CSB after detailed deliberation, in its collective wisdom decided not to consider the said Special Reports. The CSB, however, agreed to convene next regular meeting to consider promotion from BS-19 to BS-20 and from BS-20 to BS-21 in all the Ministries/Divisions/Department, shortly upon receipt of PER 2012 of the officers on the panel. (5) The name of Mr. Orya Maqbool Abbasi was placed before the Central Selection Board (CSB) held on 1 lth-14th and 27th February, 2013. The Board observed that the officer was earlier suptrseded on 23rd-24th September and 3rd October, 2011 for the reason that professionally not sounthand unfit to hold higher responsibility. His score of PERs, TERs and marks awarded by Board was below the prescribed score of 75. The Board noted that said supersession was not supported by his PERs record particularly for the last five years which, inter-alia rated him as outstanding/very good with integrity as above board. He did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after his last supersession. His PER for the year 2011 was required to be earned subsequent to his supersession in terms of para 1(a)(iv) of Revised Promotion Policy 2007. The Board decided to defer him. He is to be re-considered on the basis of PER of complete 12 months, as required under policy." 19. Report on behalf of head of CSB/Chairman FPSC was filed through C.M.A. No,3803 of 2013 stating therein that CSB after detailed discussion and taking into account all aspects decided to consider all promotion cases placed before it on the basis of PERs upto 2011. The petitioner was superseded in the previous meeting of the CSB held October 2011. As per the Policy,' the superseded officers are required to earn PERs for 12 months but the petitioner had not earned PERs for 12 months, upto December 2011, therefore he along with all other officers falling in that category were deferred to the next meeting. First session of the CSB was held on 1lth-14th February, 2013 to consider the cases of promotions, but some of the agenda items could not be considered due to pre-engagements of the Board…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.