' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.--- The present petition i,e, Writ Petition No,660 of 2004 as also Writ Petition No,8155 of 2005 and Writ Petition No,4129 of 2006, are being disposed of together, as all involve common questions of law and facts.
2. In all these petitions, the petitioner has challenged his supersessions qua his promotion for the years 2004,2005 and 2006 and it has been argued by Hafiz Tariq Nasim, learned counsel for the petitioner that in 23 years' service record of the petitioner, there is no adverse remarks about his competency or integrity or any other things; on penalty has even been imposed upon the petitioner; there is no enquiry pending against him under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 or under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and also on account of any complaint with the Anti-Corruption Department or the NAB, etc. It is further stated that the blood count of the petitioner is 72 whereas Shaukat Ali Somro, who belongs to the equal badge, having blood counts of 71.2, has been promoted while respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 who are juniors to the petitioner, have also been promoted. By relying upon the case reported as Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas and Safron, Government of Pakistan, Pak. Secretariat, Islamabad v. Government of Pakistan through its Secretary Establishment Division (Cabinet Secretariat), Cabinet Block Constitution Avenue, Islamabad 2003 PLC (C.S.) 503, it is stated that there are the policy guidelines for the promotion of the civil servants, which have not been followed by the Central Selection Board and any arbitrary supersession is not warranted by law. In this behalf, reliance is placed upon the judgment reported as Khan M. Muti-ur-Rehman and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance (Revenue Division), Islamabad and others 2006 PLC (C.S.) 564, which judgment has been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.Ps. Nos.215-K to 217-K of 2006, vide judgment dated 17-5-2006; other reference has been made to ground (t) of the present writ petition, in which details have been given about the arbitrariness of the respondents in superseding the petitioner, but this ground has not been refuted by respondent No,1 and only evasive denial has been made, therefore, it is submitted that such evasive denial shall tantamount to be an admission by the respondent in the parawise comments.
3. I have examined the record, which has been brought by the respondents/Department in pursuance of the order, dated 4-5-2007; according to which, the petitioner has been superseded in a "subjective manner"; it is not spelt out from such record, as to why and on the basis of what material, the petitioner has been imputed the "reputation of being corrupt" or that he does not meet the required qualification for the promotion. Which it is not established from the record that any adverse remark was ever made in ACR of the petitioner about his integrity or ability or there was any other material before the Committee on the basis of which, such conclusion could be drawn.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents/Department has also not been able to establish that in view of the blood count of the petitioner, the policy guidelines for the promotion, which obviously are the seniority cum the fitness has been followed in the petitioner's case. Therefore it may be held that all the supersessions of the petitioner, when tested at the touchstone of "objectivety" cannot be upheld; there are no reasons to justify the supersessions. However, as the petitioner till now has been superseded thrice and for each cause of action, he has filed a separate writ petition, but the time cannot be reversed, so as to promote the petitioner with effect from the date of his respective supersessions, except an order can be issued that the petitioner's case be considered in the next forthcoming Central Selection Board (C.S.B.) meeting. However, the earlier supersessions of the petitioner should not be an impediment in his way for considering his case; the C.S.B. Shall consider the case independent of the earlier three supersessions of the petitioner, and if the petitioner is being again superseded, 'valid reasons shall be given in terms of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.
' In the light of above, these petitions are allowed, but only to the extent that the case of the petitioner should be considered in the forthcoming meeting of the C.S.B. Without prejudiced on account of the earlier supersessions of the petitioner.