' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- The petitioner is an officer of DMG, Group. His promotion case along with other DMG Officers from BS-19 to BS-20 had been considered by the Central Selection Board-respondent No,2 in its meeting held on 28-8-2006 but the petitioner was not promoted on the basis of an intelligence report with regard to his integrity while the officers junior to the petitioner as well as having lesser quantification have been promoted. The case of the petitioner is that he fulfilled the criteria for promotion, according to the Promotion Committee, had clean record throughout his career, which starts since 1986. No adverse report was ever conveyed to him. His work, conduct and integrity had never been questioned by any of his superior under whom he had worked.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been punished malafidely on the basis of an intelligence report submitted by a class four employee.
3. Report and parawise comments were called for from respondents which have been received and perused. The objection of non-maintainability of the writ petition has been raised by the respondents taking a specific stand that the petitioner has not been considered- for promotion because of a report of the concerned intelligence agency that he did not enjoy good reputation.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the report and parawise comments.
5. Learned Deputy Attorney-General has not been able to rebut the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, raised in para.3 of the writ petition nor he has been able to point out any adverse remarks, with regard to the work, conduct and integrity of the petitioner in his ACR dossiers.
He only supported the respondent's case.
6. According to the Promotion Committee of the Federal Governed as contained in Serial No,172-A of the Esta Code (1997 Edition), the following guidelines have been indicated:-- "(5) Posts carrying basic pay scale 20 are middle management post. Field Offices are generally headed by the Officers in this scale. It is, therefore, essential that in addition to the relevance of experience these Officers must also have a sufficient variety and width of experience so that--
(i) they acquire an overview of the functions performed by these organizations within the broader framework of Government's overall objectives/activities to ensure smooth and effective management at the field level; and
(ii) they can lend pragmatism to policy formulation in assignments at the secretariat.
' Variety of experience would include experience in the field, corporations, attached departments, different Ministries/ Divisions and in our Missions abroad. For promotion to middle management posts, a civil servant must fulfil the following requirements:-
(a) Qualifying service.--- possess 17 years' service as an officer subject to the provisions contained in Establishment Division's O.M. No,1/9/80-R-II(A), dated 2-6-1983.
(b) Eligibility threshold.--- attain a minimum score of 70 marks in the ACRs, in accordance with the formula given in the Addendum.
(c) Qualifications.--- as prescribed by relevant recruitment rules.
(d) Relevance of Experience.--- possess experience relevant to the functions of the post to which promotion is being made.
(e) Quality and output of work and "Integrity".--- marks calculated in accordance with the formula in the Addendum shall be a crucial factor in determining the comparative merit of an officer. "
7. The petitioner has served in remote hard areas of the country which is as follows:--
(i) Assistant Commissioner Sibbi, Ziarat.
(ii) Chief of Section P&D Department Government of Balochistan.
(iii) Political Agent Kohloo.
(iv) Deputy Commissioner, Mousakhel Balochistan.
(v) Deputy Secretary Food Department, Government of Punjab.
(vi) Director Local Government and Rural Development Department, Multan.
(vii) Additional Commissioner, Lahore Division.
(ix) Deputy Commissioner, Muzaffargarh.
(x) Director Local Government Lahore Division.
(xi) Additional Secretary, Internal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Punjab.
(xii) Additional Secretary Planning Agricultural Department.
(xiii) District Coordination Officer, Bahawalpur.
(xiv) NIPA report excellent with 88.9% marks and rated as top five performers out of 28 participants at 40th advance course.
8. The quantification formula indicates that even officers upon whom major penalty has been imposed or adverse ACRs, are recorded, they do not become outcast for the purpose of promotion.
The quantification formula is intended to structure discretion of Selection Board to ensure just and fair treatment to contenders for promotion.
9. The allegations with regard to the integrity of the petitioner levelled through intelligence report is not supported by any tangible material nor even justified. The same was not communicated to the petitioner and it has been laid down in Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi's case reported as 2003 PLC (C.S.) 503 that the consideration of an officer for promotion is, therefore, 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 opinion of the Board unless was backed by some tangible material it could not be said that the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered in accordance with law. So much so, it has been laid down in another case by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan titled as Muhammad Farooq Chauhan v. Province of Punjab PLD 1987 SC 271 that even the adverse uncommunicated remarks cannot be taken into consideration to decline the promotion to an officer.
10. As to intelligence report qua the integrity of the petitioner is concerned, the answer would be that a report from the intelligence department with respect to a Government servant touching upon his integrity and work stands at an inferior position as invariably this is written by a person of the lowest rank, who cannot have a perception, which an immediate boss of a civil servant may have. When ACRs of a civil servant are discarded the intelligence report cannot take their place absolutely and this can lead to very dangerous results. At the most an overall picture can be drawn based on the statements in the ACRs, and the intelligence reports.
11. The non-consideration of ACRs, of civil servant by Selection Board on the basis of adverse intelligence report "qua" his integrity without asking his explanation would mean that Board had not ascertained from entire material as to what was the integrity of civil servant for the purpose of consideration of his promotion case nor the Board has determined that as to whq. Was the author of the report and it has been laid down in case of Muhammad Akbar Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 PLC (C.S.) 619 that intelligence report, if given by a Grade-IV officer could not be relied upon.
12. In view of the above discussion, this Court without any hesitation has inferred that the Board has not applied its proper judicious mind to the petitioner's case. The case of the petitioner is not covered within the terms and conditions of a civil servant. The appeal is not competent before the Service Tribunal against the decision/order of the departmental authorities, determining the fitness or otherwise of the officer for promotion to higher post. In this context a reference can be made to the case of Shafi Muhammad Mughal v. Secretary Establishment Division and others 2001 SCMR 1446.
13. For the foregoing reasons and following the dictum laid down in the cases referred to above and unreported judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 17-5-2006 fir C.Ps.
Nos.215-K to 217-K of 2006, this writ petition is allowed and the decision of the competent authority, superseding the petitioner, being without lawful authority is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Central Selection Board for decision afresh, qua the promotion of the petitioner, within a period of two months from today or in the next coming meeting of the Board whichever is earlier.