MUHAMMAD MUNIR PERACHA, J. The petitioner, a Grade-20 Officer, was considered for promotion to BS-21 by the Central Selection Board in its meeting held on 5.7.2005. He was superseded. In paragraph-5 of parawise comments on behalf of the respondent, it has been averred:--- "Admitted to the extent that meetings of the Central Selection Board were held in the year 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 but the petitioner was not recommended for promotion to BS-21 by CSB. In the last meeting of the Central Selection Board held on 5.7.2005 the officer was recommended for supersession with the following remarks:- Superseded in 2004 on account of negative report from the concerned agency. The same opinion was held by the present Central Selection Board as well.
2. In the meeting of the Central Selection Board held on 5.7.2005, the petitioner was again considered for promotion to BS-21 by the Central Selection Board. The petitioner was recommended for promotion and it is stated that he has been promoted to BS-21. The prayer of the petition in the writ petition is:--- "(i) the petitioner's supersession being based upon any material not confronted to the petitioner may kindly be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
(ii) the respondents Nos.1&2 may kindly be directed to reconvene the Central Selection Board for re-consideration of the petitioner's case for promotion to BS-21 without being prejudiced the material not part of record or not confronted to the petitioner and on having found fit be promoted i.e.f. 14.12.2000, when the same was due in his favour, with all consequential benefits; (i.e) the impugned office Memorandum dated 3.9.2005 being violation of law be declared as illegal and of no legal effect.
(iv) Any other relief, which this Honourable Court deems just and appropriate in the given circumstances, may also very graciously be granted to the petitioner; and
(v) Costs of this petition may very graciously be also awarded."
3. In view of the subsequent promotion to Grade-21, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the supersession of the petitioner in the year 2005 be converted into deferment so that he may not be taken junior to the officers in the gradation list of BS-21, who were promoted in the year 2005, although junior to him in BS-21.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the report of intelligence agencies with which he was not confronted, the petitioner could not have been superseded.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the following judgments:---
(1) Muhammad Ashraf v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment (2007 PLC (CS.)
669).
(2) Muhammad Akbar Khan Hoti v. Federation of Pakistan (2006 PLC (C.S.) 619).
(3) Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas and Safran v. Government of Pakistan, Pak Secretariat (2003 PLC(CS} 503).
5. The supersession of the petitioner in the meeting of the Central Selection Board on the ground of negative reports from the intelligence Agencies particularly when petitioner was not confronted with the reports, is illegal. The supersession of the petitioner in the year 2005 is therefore, declared to have been made without lawful authority having no legal effect. The supersession of the petitioner in the year' 2005 shall be treated to be a deferment.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above term accordingly.