Respondents and appellant, were selected by Federal Public Service Commission as Veterinary Officers (BS-17) in the year 1990, and were so appointed the same year

Citation Name : 2017 SCMR 359 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : Dr. EHSAN-UL-HAQ KHAN
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
S. 8(4)---Civil Servants (seniority ) Rules, 1993, R. 3, Proviso (3)---seniority ---Scope---Indolence and delay in challenging seniority list---Respondents and appellant, were selected by Federal Public Service Commission as Veterinary Officers (BS-17) in the year 1990, and were so appointed the same year---Federal Public Service Commission as per merit placed respondents senior to appellant, however, in the seniority list, issued by the department subsequently, the order of seniority was altered and respondents were placed junior to appellant---On the basis of the said seniority list, appellant was promoted to BS-18 in the year 1996---Admittedly, the seniority list, whereby the seniority assigned by Federal Public Service Commission to respondents was altered by ranking appellant senior to respondents, was upon circulation, duly signed by respondents without any protest---Respondents challenged seniority list and promotion of appellant to BS-18 before the Service Tribunal, three years after the appellant had been promoted---Tribunal through its judgment though gave directions to rectify the seniority list but declined to pass any order regarding the promotion of appellant to BS-18---Respondents felt content with the said order and did not pursue their further relief regarding the promotion of appellant to BS-18---During the pendency of respondents' appeal before the Tribunal, two direct inductees were appointed in BS-18, however, neither were they impleaded in the appeal nor was any relief sought against them by respondents---In the examination held for the post to which direct inductees had been appointed, the respondents also participated but failed---Respondents never challenged the appointment of the direct inductees and it was at least about seven years after the said appointment, that respondents sought seniority over direct inductees, also, which in the facts and circumstances of the case, they were not entitled to as direct inductees were appointed in BS-18 about seven years prior to the promotion of respondents in the said cadre, and had in fact failed in their attempt for their appointment along with the direct inductees---In terms of proviso (3) of R. 3 of the Civil Servants (seniority ) Rules, 1993, respondents, being senior to appellant, were, upon promotion to BS-18, entitled to their original seniority but having remained indolent in the matter and not having challenged the change in the seniority list for more than three years, and further having remained satisfied with the judgment of the Service Tribunal and by not challenging the same, had contributed to the creation of an anomalous situation---Furthermore, the Tribunal's judgment, whereby it declined relief of promotion to respondents from the date the appellant was promoted to BS-18, operated as res-judicata in respect of the said issue---Supreme Court directed that the seniority of the respondents, appellant and direct inductees should be assigned in the order of their promotions/appointments in BPS-18---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2017 SCMR 206 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : SHAHID PERVAIZ
Side Opponent : EJAZ AHMAD
S. 8-A [since omitted]---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 9-A [since omitted]---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9, 14, 18, 25, 240 & 242---Out of turn promotion---Constitutionality and legality---Similarities between S. 8-A of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and S. 9-A of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973---Both provisions were substantively similar in nature and catered to the same purpose, i.e., out-of-turn promotion, which was unconstitutional and a nullity ab initio; both provisions created a new exception or category of promotion to the existing framework of service rules, in the name of out of turn promotion, which was alien to the concept and scheme of civil service rules, read with Arts. 4, 9, 14, 18, 25, 240 & 242 of the Constitution; both provisions overtly militated against the settled law and principles of promotion based on merit, inter se seniority , annual performance reports etc.; both provisions were discriminatory and violative of the Fundamental Rights of other civil servants who had been affected by out of turn promotions, despite the fact that they may stand a notch up in merit, inter se seniority and even competence from the beneficiary of such promotions.

Citation Name : 2017 SCMR 206 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : SHAHID PERVAIZ
Side Opponent : EJAZ AHMAD
S. 8-A [since omitted]---Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, R. 14-A [since omitted]---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 9-A [since omitted]---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 14 & 188---Review of Supreme Court judgment---Out of turn promotion to police personnel on basis of gallantry---Constitutionality and legality---Out of turn promotion was not only against the Constitution, but also against the Injunctions of Islam---Each out of turn promotion necessarily damaged the career of a corresponding deserving officer---Acts of gallantry did not justify out-of-turn promotions as they necessarily lead to impingement of the Fundamental Rights of fellow officers in terms of blocking their smooth progression of careers and impinging their respect and honour---Supreme Court directed the concerned officials and authorities to fix the seniority of all the police officers who were given out of turn promotion along with their batch-mates, as if they were never given out of turn promotion---Review petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS) 1304 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division
Side Opponent : Dr. MUHAMMAD ARIF
S. 9---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Rr. 7, 8 & 8-A---Promotion criteria---Award of 15 marks at the disposal of Central Selection Board ("Board") with 5 overriding discretionary marks and placing of civil servants in three different categories for promotion---Recommendations of the Board for deferment/supersession of civil servants---Personal whims and unfettered discretion of Members of the Board---Procedural unfairness and lack of due process---Promotion policy adopted by the Board instead of providing any evaluation structure, left it open for the Board to choose either the service dossier of the officer concerned as a source material for the evaluation of the various essential and crucial attributes of the officer, or just to rely upon the personal knowledge of its members for the said purpose---In relation to the candidate's personality profile it was left exclusively to be evaluated on the basis of the Members' knowledge, without any reference to any record---For an officer to avoid deferment or supersession, it was made essential for a candidate to obtain at least 3 out of the 5 discretionary marks in respect of "integrity/general reputation/perception"---Anomalous situation was created where an officer who may have otherwise, achieved the required threshold on the basis of evaluation of his service record, may still be superseded by the Board on the basis of the opinion harboured or nurtured by a few of its Members, and instead less deserving officer may be recommended, which could result in the degeneration of the civil service, and dissatisfaction and despondency amongst its cadres---Entire promotion process being flawed for want of a well thought out structured objective criteria, and lacking in due process, gave way to arbitrariness, ambiguity and a whimsical approach, inasmuch as the Board drifted from reliance upon the service dossier of the officer, and instead placed reliance on undefined personal opinion, and that too without qualifying it with the necessity of being based on any tangible evidence/material--- Case record showed that some of the petitioners/civil servants achieved the prescribed threshold on the basis of their Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) and Training Evaluation Reports (TERs), but had been superseded on the basis of knowledge of the Board's Members, but neither any reason was given for ignoring the quantification in the service record, nor the nature and/or source of the so-called knowledge had been disclosed---Such process not only violated the requirement of adequate disclosure, but also offended the principle of fairness, due process and procedural propriety---Even otherwise the Establishment Division had not been able to show any thing adverse against the officers in their respective service dossiers---Case record further showed that in the cases of deferments of certain officers also no plausible explanation or reason had been mentioned---Supreme Court directed that the Establishment Division should place all cases which were laid before the Board through the impugned promotion process, afresh, after withdrawing the overriding effect of five (5) marks assigned for integrity/reputation etc. and removing the deviation of the focus of the Board from the service dossier to the personal knowledge of its Members; that those officers who may have been promoted on the basis of impugned promotion process shall maintain their elevated position/status, however, in the event the officers whose cases for promotion had been deferred or superseded, were through the proposed (new) process recommended for promotion, they shall maintain their seniority vis-a-vis those who were recommended for promotion through the impugned process, and may again be so recommended, so that the seniority of the left out officers and their entitlement to the consequential benefits, including prospects of their future promotion was not adversely affected---Order accordingly.