' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts leading to this writ petition are that the petitioner became eligible for promotion to the rank of D.I.-G. In the Police Group of Pakistan in the year 2000, when his case for promotion was considered along with his batchmates in the meeting of Central Selection Board held on 20-6-2000. However, the petitioner was recommended for supersession.
2. Aggrieved by the supersession of the year 2000 the petitioner filed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal the same was accepted and it was ordered to promote the petitioner with all consequential benefits. However, the Government filed C.P.L.A. Before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, where it was noticed that the Tribunal could not pass a direction for promoting a civil servant and at the most the Tribunal could refer back the case to the Central Selection Board for reconsideration, thus, during the course of arguments, with the consensus of the parties the judgment of the Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Central Selection Board for reconsideration of the petitioner's case.
3. In compliance to the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan the petitioner's case was placed before the Central Selection Board in its meeting held on 11-2-2008 for reconsideration for promotion to BS-20, however, through letter, dated 8-3-2008, the petitioner was informed in the following terms:-- "The Board wanted to further watch the performance of the officer."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is at the verge of retirement is being victimized with no fault of him since the year 2000 when his colleagues were promoted, leaving the petitioner to run from pillar to post for his lawful right of promotion. Further submits that the impugned letter, whereby the petitioner is conveyed the reasons of non-suiting the petitioner is neither here nor there, particularly when it is viewed from the available record that the petitioner is performing his duties as Assistant Inspector-General of Police for the last more than three years and earned excellent reports as well as not even a single adverse entry is available in his record through out his service.
4-A. On the other hand the learned Deputy Attorney-General, learned A.A.-G. And the departmental representative submit that the petitioner's case shall be presented in the next meeting of the Central Selection Board again and it is the Board, who can assess the suitability of the petitioner not any Court, so filing of this writ petition against the minutes of the Central Selection Board is not warranted under law.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. So far the record of the petitioner is concerned it clearly transpires that the entire service record of the petitioner is clean, no penalty whatsoever is available in his record, his seniority amongst his batchmates is admitted but it is surprising that in the year 2000 the petitioner was superseded without any reason whatsoever except an observation that there are some average report in his A.C.R. And "he did not carry reputation of a clean officer".
7. The law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of cases still holds the field that average reports cannot be termed adverse, rather these fall within the category of good, thus, the findings of the Central Selection Board in respect of availability of average reports in the service record of the petitioner cannot be termed a convincing one for non-suiting the petitioner. So far non-carrying the reputation of a clean officer is concerned, not a single instance is quoted by the representative of the department during the course of argument, which could establish such-like unfounded observations because without any material and without any documentary evidence no one can be presumed to be unclean officer and if the department had any material regarding petitioners' reputation, the best course was to initiate enquiry against the officer and take action against him under the rules, but admittedly in the present case this was not happened, thus, the supersession of the year 2000 in respect of the petitioner is held to be a nullity in the eye of law. So far the letter, dated 8-3-2008 issued by the Establishment Division communicating the decision of C.S.B., whereby C.S.B. Wanted to further watch performance of the officer is concerned it is really astonishing one, particularly when the petitioner is performing his duties for the last more than three years as A.I.-G. And his last three A.C.Rs, are good, which is confirmed by the departmental representative present in the Court. The only impression, which could be gathered from the impugned controversy is that the Departmental Authorities are adamant not to promote the petitioner on one pretext or the other, which otherwise cannot be termed a fair treatment.
8. Such-like situation already dilated upon by this Court as well as by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in different cases like Government of Punjab v. Dr. Aman-ul-Haq 2000 PSC 599, Mr. Zafar Abbasi v. ,Government of Pakistan 2003 PLC (C.S.) 503, Khan M. Matiullah and others v.
Government of Pakistan 2006 PLC (C.S.) 564, Muhammad Iqbal v. Executive District Officer (Revenue) Lodhran 2007 SCMR 682 and Muhammad Shahid Zaheer v. Government of Pakistan 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1076, (this judgment is approved by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and even Muhammad Shahid Zaheer is promoted to the rank of Commissioner Income Tax in compliance to the judgment reported (supra).
9. After hearing both the parties and examining the record it is held that the petitioner's supersession of the year 2000 was in a "subjective" manner as the respondent could not advance any reason to justify the said supersession. It is noticed that the petitioner's promotion is withheld since the year 2000, ignoring that withholding of promotion is major penalty as per provisions of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 and that penalty could not be imposed on any civil servant without the recourse to the procedure, even in the year 2008 when the petitioner is denied the right of promotion, the element of transparency is missing rather it speaks otherwise ignoring that the promotion of the civil servant in just and fair manner is a paramount importance for good governess, otherwise his commitment to job, dedication to duty, and even his integrity might be confined to casualty ward. It is to be observed that in case of withholding promotion in violation of law, in excess of jurisdiction, without jurisdiction or in colourable exercise of power extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution can always be invoked for redressing the wrong. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed, the decision to supersede the petitioner for promotion to BS-20 in the year 2000 is declared as without lawful authority, the reasons mentioned in the letter, dated 8-3-2008, whereby the Board wanted to further watch the performance of the officer is declared in excess of jurisdiction being based on extraneous consideration. The case is remanded to the Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad with a direction to place the same before the Central Selection Board in its forthcoming meeting for re-consideration of the petitioner's case afresh for promotion to BS-20, in the light of observations recorded in this judgment and particularly the promotion case be considered w,e,f, year 2000 when the colleagues of the petitioner were promoted and the petitioner was wrongly superseded.
11. If Central Selection Board is not holding its meeting in the next two months then in the circumstances of the case the petitioner's promotion case be finalized by circulation. The entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from today positively under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (J.) of this Court. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.