SAHIB KHAN, J.---Petitioner, a government servant, serving as Administrative officer (BPS-16) in the Gilgit Baltistan Education Department (now retired) assailed the findings of departmental Promotion Committee (herein after called as DPC) held on 16-5-2006, whereby , his case for promotion against the post of Assistant Director Admin, (BS-17) was deferred for the reasons contained therein.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the available record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that the promotion case of petitioner to the higher pay scale was deferred by the DPC in spite of fulfilling all the pre-requisites e.g. Qualifications, seniority and favourable reports from his superiors about his performance.
' The learned Counsel referred the minutes of meeting dated above which contain the facts of the case of the petitioner, report of FMCC and the findings of DPC we deem it proper to reproduce the same here for convince:-- "The post of Assistant Director Admin (BPS-17) is laying vacant in N.A. Education Department which is to be filed in 75% by promotion and 25% by initial requirement. The existing post falls in promotion quota. Mr. Muhammad Habil, Administrative Officer (BPS-16) NA Education Department is senior," but the FMCC has reported about him as under:-- "It is intimated that Mr. Muhammad Habil, Administrative Officer is not clear for promotion for one year. His performance will be monitored for one year and case may be resubmitted for clearance to this Headquarter in Feb, 2007".
' On the basis of above reproduced report by the Headquarter Formation Monitoring and Coordination Cell the departmental promotion committee recorded its findings as under:-- "Keeping in view of above report, the DPC deferred, Mr. Muhammad Habil, Administrative Officer (BPS-16) for promotion to the post of Assistant Director Admin, (BS-17) and directed that the case be resubmitted to DPC after having been cleared him by FMCC in Feb 2007."
4. It is admitted that the petitioner is senior most in the category of employees provided as feeding posts for the promotions against the post of Assistant Director Admin (BS-17) under the existing rules. He fulfills all the pre-requisites, hence the concerned department recommended a case for his promotion which was part of agenda of DPC held on 16-5-2006. It is also evident that the post available has to be filled in, on the basis of seniority/fitness among the eligible incumbents, as it falls against the promotion quota. No adverse reporting or disciplinary actions are noted to be on record or under way against the petitioner. These all O.K. Reports can be gathered from the above reproduced para of the DPC. The learned Assistant Advocate-General and departmental counsel appearing in the Court today are not in a position to identify any other deficiency except that mentioned in the findings.
5. The single barrier in promotion of the petitioner cited in the findings, which could not be crossed by the duly constituted powerful committed consisting of senior most officials, assigned an important mandate relating to the promotion of Govt. Servants in higher category and scale.
Hence one can very rightly expect for legal as well as merit based decision while discharging their duties at the capacity and the law/rules related with the promotion cases of Government Servant would be applied in its true sense and sprit. As has been stated above that the mandate being sensitive and crucial one by its nature, it requires full attention and concentration while dealing with the matter, which oftenly could not be afforded due to work load, or other activities performable by the Chairman and members of DPC.
6. The mere fact, which became hurdle in the promotion of the petitioner and compel the DPC to hold the findings reproduced above. Although in the circumstances the committee was fully competent and empowered to look the matter in the light of the laws/rules and judgment of the Court (if available) related with the matters, but seemingly none from the participants questioned the legal effect of a report made by any of agency including FMCC.
7. This Division Bench of Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court had decided a similar case titled "Shamshad Hassan v. Provincial Government through Chief Secretary N.As. And 12 others" on 24-8-2006, in Writ Petition No,2 of 2006. In that case the promotion of the petitioner was also withheld by the DPC on the mere ground, cited in this case. At the moment, when the arguments of the referred case were heard, the learned Advocate-Generally was specially asked to describe the legal position of reports made by the FMCC or any other agency with reference to the promotion of public servant serving under Government Servant Act 1973. The learned Advocate-General could hardly be able to produce a letter dated 29 October 2002, written on behalf of Director FMCC, in response to a letter from respondent No,1 No,SO(S)-1- 1(14)/2002 the relevant text of the letter dated reads as under:-- "Formation, Monitoring the Coordination Cell only endorses the observations given by the various intelligence agencies and final decision is left to be taken by our office. This office has never dictated its verdict."
8. The learned Assistant Advocate-General assisted by the counsel for the department, even today could not be able to point out any adverse reporting disciplinary action under way which otherwise affect the promotion case of the petitioner. The sole adverse report by FMCC having no weight and legal position while considering promotion case of Government Servant. The promotion of Government Servant cannot be withheld on the ground as stated in the case of the petitioner, which we feel to be a frivolous excuse and unacceptable in the eyes of law.
9. The referred judgment of this Division Bench has not been challenged before any competent forum, hence has gained finality. The sole objection raised in promotion of the petitioner had already been attended and answered by the Court in that Judgment, which was, of course having authoritative position for the Committee while dealing with similar case in future. The tendency of violation/ ignorance of laws/ rules and the relevant Judgments delivered by the Higher Courts are becoming a day to day issue specially by those who are bound to enforce the law. Undoubtly a large number of the cases are creation of such ignorance that too, is by the responsible authorities/forums, which results overburdening work load on the Courts besides financial loses to the public at large/public exchequer. The DPC should be careful while dealing with the service matters of Government Servant and refrain from unnecessarily dragging them into the Courts.
10. The nutshell of the discussion is that the petitioner fully qualifies for promotion. The DPC had without any legal infirmity deferred his case for promotion. Respondent are directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Director Admin (BS-17) having resort to the procedure provided as under the relevant laws/rules, from the date when his case was deferred. No orders as to costs.
Petition accepted. File.