' According to the contents of the Writ Petition the case of the petitioner was considered by a Central Selection Board but he was not recommended for promotion from BS-19 to 20 as it was found that he failed to obtain the thresh hold of 70 marks under the heading "Quality and Output of work". The petitioner filed Representation stating that since the Column under the said heading has been deleted from the form of Performance Evaluation Report w.e.f. Year 2000, only the over all assessm ent was to be seen. The Secretary Communication, Government of Pakistan supported the said contention of the petitioner and accordingly he was recommended for promotion. However, vide Notification dated 24-4-2002 the Competent Authority refused to accept the said recommendations and proceeded to supersede the petitioner. His representation was returned back with the remarks that it is not competent in the mater of determination of fitness for promotion to the higher grade. His appeal before the learned Services Tribunal is still pending.
Meanwhile, the Central Selection Board again proceeded to consider the case of the petitioner but refused to recommend him on the ground of failure to meet the said "thresh hold" under the said heading.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the said heading i.e. "Quality and output of work" has been done away with in the new formats for drawing the said reports, the Competent Authority I acted without lawful authority in refusing to promote the petitioner when A he was recommended by the Central Selection Board and thereafter, Central Selection Board acted in the same manner while refusing to recommend him on the same. Ground. He refers to the case of Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi v. Government of Pakistan, and others (2003 PLC (C.S) 503).
3. I have given some thought to the said contention of the learned counsel. To my mind the argument is rather preposterous. Unless and until the competent Reporting and Countersigning Officer is to evaluate the quantity and quality of the output of a Civil Servant, it would not at all be possible to make a statement as to fitness of the Civil Servant for further promotion. In any case the argument is factually incorrect. The learned counsel has placed on record the copies of both formats.. Now, whereas, in the earlier format, an Officer was to be evaluated separately under several heads as stated in Parts II, III and IV (output and quality of work was provided as Item No.6 in Part-IV). Part III of the new format specifically calls upon the Reporting Officer to comment on the quantity and quality of output. Thus, the contention is liable to be rejected. I have also examined the said judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel. I find that in the said case of Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi, it was found as a. Fact that the said Civil Servant crossed the threshold of 70 under all the heads but it was contended that one of the Members in order to cause unlawful harm to the said Civil Servant had given a note that he does not enjoy good reputation. The case was accordingly decided in the said factual background. In the present case, there is not even an allegation that evaluation has not been made by a Competent Authority. The fact is that in the matter of quantity and quality of the output of his work, the petitioner was found lagging behind.
4. I may further note here that even while conferring the right of appeal upon a Civil Servant under section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973, the Legislature took care not to provide such a right in the matter of determination of fitness for promotion or appointment. The reason is that there is consensus of judicial opinion in the subcontinent, including the Superior Judiciary of our country that this matter lies entirely within domain of Competent Departmental Authorities and not in Courts.
5. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.