' JUSTICE (R.) TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).---Briefly the facts are that the appellant is an officer of Central Superior Services, Postal Group. He was inducted on 2-3-1977 as Divisional Superintendent Post ,Offices Derajat Division. The appellant was promoted to BPS-18 on 29-5-1985.
According to the seniority list of Postal Group BPS-19 as corrected upto 31-8-2004 the appellant figures at Serial No,2 while the private respondents Nos.4 to 8 are mentioned at Serial Nos.5, 6, 11, 12 and 14. The appellant has maintained seniority above the private respondents continuously since 1999.
2. Meetings of the Central Selection Board were held on 26-4-2001 and 31-12-2001. The appellant was not considered for promotion as his quantification score was recorded as 69. The appellant preferred Appeal No,891(L)CS of 2001, during the course of which the appellant made a statement that the said appeal had borne fruit as his quantification score has been revised from 69 to 71.
3. Vide Notification dated 19-1-2005 the promotion of the private respondents Nos.4 to 5 was approved by the Competent Authority to BPS-20. Through the same notification the appellant was ordered to be superseded.
4. The appellant filed a representation before the Secretary, Communication, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad which remained unresponded despite the expiry of 90 days.
5. The appellant challenges his supersession on the following grounds:---
(a) That the appellant has to his credit the necessary qualifying service of 17 years and his service record is par excellence. The appellant was senior most in his cadre with the requisite experience.
Having qualified the threshold of quantification, the appellant was entitled for promotion to BPS-20 on the basis of seniority, eligibility and fitness.
(b) That the appellant has not been communicated the reasons and grounds which prevailed with the respondent No,1 in promoting juniors over and above the appellant. In this context it is submitted that the policy of "the best of the best" allegedly adopted by the respondent No,1 in not promoting the appellant has been declared discriminatory by this Tribunal. Such policy having the effect of ignoring the seniority of an incumbent was wholly illegal and void.
(c) That the appellant after having served for a better part of his life had attained unassailable seniority over the private respondents and had acquired a vested right and had legitimate expectancy to be promoted on the basis of seniority and other cognate factors.
(d) That the promotion policy has been framed subject to a number of factors as indicated in the ESTACODE and the quantification score alone was not the effective yardstick for filling up of selection posts in disregard of other relevant factors as recognized by law.
(e) That while serving in BPS-19, the appellant was posted against the post of Postmaster General, N.-W.F.P. (BPS-20 appointment) where he served for the following period:-- ' 1993, 1995, 7-5-1997 to 10-8-1998 and 18-9-2004 to 25-1-2005.
' During this period the appellant earned singular distinguishing cash prize and commendation certificate of distinguishing service. The appellant successfully served in unattractive area.
6. To the contrary the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and respondents Nos. 4 to 8 on the other have vehemently contested the claim of the appellant. According to the respondents, no appeal lies on the matter relating to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade; that the recommendation in respect of promotion of the private respondents was made in accordance with law; that the post carrying BPS-19 and above are selection posts therefore the same have to be filled on merits on the recommendations of the CSB; that the appellant was only appointed on current charge basis as Postmaster General, N.-W.F.P. (BPS-20) as a stopgap arrangement and that this would not confer any right of regular promotion to the said post and that all the private respondents obtained much higher quantification score then the appellant and were rightly promoted on the basis of the best of the best policy.
7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
8. Admittedly the appellant enjoys seniority over the private respondents in BPS-19 as mentioned in the seniority list since 1999. It is also not denied that he has put in at least 17 years qualifying service which is necessary consideration for promotion to BPS-20. The appellant has achieved a quantification score of 70 and is thus not short of the necessary threshold required in this behalf. It is correct that the quantification score of the private respondents is higher than the appellant however, it is not denied that the appellant is senior to all private respondents and has nothing adverse in his entire record.
9. Upon a direction, the respondents have produced the ACR dossier and ICP Chart of the appellant for perusal of this Tribunal. Throughout his career he has continuously earned commendable reports from all concerned. He has been consistently held fit for promotion in the years prior to his supersession, in the year of his supersession and even thereafter till his last recorded report. The entire record of the appellant does not show a single adverse entry of any kind which could justify the appellant's supersession it is also not denied that the appellant has a completely unblemished service record.
10. The pivotal question which arises for determination in this appeal is as to what should be the criteria for promotion to a selection post or conversely what circumstances entail supersession.
11. From the perusal of the record it transpires that the only ground taken by the respondents to justify the supersession of the appellant is as under:--- "Although he met the required threshold, his performance does not meet the criteria of excellence and comparative merit."
' This is based upon the assertion that all the private respondents who have been promoted had higher quantification score than the appellant and were thus "best out of the best" amongst the qualifying candidates.
12. In our view the most crucial factor while determining criteria for promotion must be seniority along with the fulfilment of other cognate factors. The factor of seniority and the weightage required to be accorded to it is of paramount importance to a civil servant. This gives a legitimate expectancy to a senior civil servant to be considered on priority basis for promotion as against his juniors. Seniority is the foremost element which must be acknowledged while other considerations though important must take the back seat. When we mention the term "seniority-cum-fitness" or the phrase "consideration of candidates for a selection post in the order of seniority" what we understand unquestionably is that Seniority in either case is an indispensable attribute. For the same reason supersession is an exception rather than the rule. To put it differently seniority lands a presumptive priority to be preferentially considered for promotion as against the junior incumbent and can be displaced only when there are serious adverse elements and deviants in the record of the Senior Civil Servants.
13. This shall take us to the important question of the nature of quantification. The quantification score and threshold has come to be treated as a barrier which actually determines the fitness for promotion or selection to the next grade. Whether it is justifiable for the Central Selection Board to further determine the "fitter out of the fit" or in other words the best out of the best remains to be seen.
14. The best of the best policy has been examined by this Tribunal in a number of cases. In Appeal No,1059(R)CS of 2004 and Appeal No,2(R)CS of 2004, this Tribunal held that the criteria employed in determining the best of the best on the cases of quantification score alone may not be a sufficient yardstick of determining excellence and the comparative merit. It was suggested that the Establishment Division must be more objective in determining excellence and comparative merit by defining it further and giving more specific reasons for denying promotion to an officer who is eligible, senior and who fulfils the requisite criteria such as length of service, training requirement and relevant experience etc. While refusing to grant leave to appeal against the said order the observations made by this Tribunal in the said case were approved by the Honourable Supreme Court through order passed in Civil Petitions Nos.836 and 837 of 2006. Similarly in another case bearing Appeal No,988(R)CS of 2005 titled Muhammad Riaz Chaudhry v. Secretary, Establishment Division, this Tribunal reiterated its early findings and oncce again the Honourable Supreme Court approved the findings of the Tribunal wherein the supersession of a senior officer was converted into deferment vide order passed in Civil Petition No,983 of 2006.
15. It would thus be seen that though the principle of the best of the best policy does not erode the codified promotion formula yet when exercised unscrupulously it can have the effect of sacrificing seniority at the altar of the mathematical dynamics of the quantification rule. This is indeed not what the law giver intended.
16. We have carefully examined the entire service record of the appellant. There is not a hint of anything adverse present therein. All the ACRs are favourable, replete with recommendations and consistently find him fit for promotion. The entire record is unblemished. The appellant is admittedly senior to the private respondents. He fulfils all the necessary conditions qualifying for promotion, The appellant has succeeded in making out a cause for a reconsideration of his case by the CSB. Resultantly the appeal is accepted, the supersession of the appellant is converted into deferment and the case is remanded to the competent authority with a direction to constitute a special Selection Board within one month to consider the case of the appellant for promotion in accordance with the findings and observations herein before contained and in accordance with law and merit.
17. Parties shall bear their own costs. Parties be informed.