' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- With the consent of the learned counsel this Constitutional Petition was finally heard and is being decided at Katcha Peshi stage. The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the Petitioner joined employment of Respondent No,1 as Junior Officer on 8-7- 1966. With the passage of time he earned a series of promotions: Officer Grade-II in 1973; Officer Grade-I in 1976; Assistant Vice-President in 1981; Vice President in 1985; Senior Vice-President in 1989 and lastly Executive Vice-President with effect from 1-1-1994. Petitioner attained age of superannuation and retired on 9-12-1999. After his retirement he was re-hired on contract which contract also expired on 9-9-2000. Subsequent to Petitioner's retirement, with effect from 1-1-1999, promotions took place and juniors of petitioner were promoted as Senior Executive ,Vice-Presidents and it is grievance of the Petitioner that he was not considered.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to clause (g) of the Promotion Policy to contend that he had the requisite experience in service which made him eligible for promotion and inspite of such eligibility he was not considered for promotion. Learned counsel referred to, seniority list and submitted that he was at Serial No,4 and whereas persons at Serial Nos.5, 6, 7, 8 to 12 and 17 had been promoted he had not been promoted. Petitioner earlier filed Constitutional Petition No,1193 of 2005 in this Court. That Constitutional Petition was disposed of vide order dated 9-3-2007. The order reads as under:--- "Petitioner claims that his 'Review Petition seeking post-facto promotion has not been decided for the last several years, though a number of employees were granted post-facto promotion. It was urged that when duty is to be performed. It must be performed within reasonable time. Therefore, the petition is admitted and by consent finally disposed of in term that the respondent will decide the petitioner's application for post-facto promotion within four months."
3. After this order was passed petitioner's case was considered by the Board of Director and vide letter dated August 3, 2007 the petitioner was informed that his appeal for promotion had been rejected by the Board of Director. Consequently, this Constitutional Petition was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to an order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in the case of Nisar Ahmed Ansari whose name appeared at Serial No,5 in the seniority list. The Federal Service Tribunal vide this Judgment passed on 25-8-2003 had directed the respondent Bank that the appellant's case be considered and he be granted promotion on the same lines as his juniors were promoted. Learned counsel submitted that such order was challenged in the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the CPLA vide order dated 22-9-2004. Learned counsel referred to order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in the same vein in the case of Ahmed Ali Khan whose name appeared at Serial No,7 in the seniority list. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that Board of Directors has not considered the case of the petitioner in any real sense of the word 'consider' and has not passed speaking order.
5. Chudary Muhammad Ashraf Khan learned counsel for the respondent Bank referred to the Promotion Policy and stated that the criteria lays down minimum conditions for eligibility and it does not state that the employees who meet the criteria become ipso facto promotable. Learned counsel also referred to clause E(c) which states that inter alia, retired employees shall not be eligible for promotion. When the learned counsel was asked as to on what basis the Board decided the matter the learned counsel submitted that the case was considered in 70th meeting of the Board. Learned counsel was directed to produce a copy of relevant part of the minutes of the meeting which the learned counsel placed on record vide compliance report dated 25-10-2010.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record. In Writ Petition No,1193 of 2005 by consent it was ordered that application of the petitioner for post facto promotion shall be considered and decided. The minutes indicate that a note was placed by the President of the Bank before the Board of Directors vide Memo.
No,146/2008. The Note after narrating facts, stated that since he was re-employed on contract after his retirement therefore he was in service when the promotion orders were issued and secondly in any case promotions of the Juniors had been given effect from 1-1-1999 which is a date on which the petitioner was in regular service. Thereafter para from a Judgment of the Supreme Court is cited and provision from ESTACODE is quoted. Finally the President requested the Board to give "due considerations in light of the above submissions Mr. G.A. Allana (the present Petitioner)" and approve his promotion as EVP with effect from 1-1-1999. Upon this the Board recorded the following decisions:- "RESOLVED THAT, as Mr. Ghulam Akbar Allana, EVP has not raised any cogent point in his appeal to merit consideration, therefore, his appeal for promotion as SEVP, be (sic) and is hereby rejected."
7. This decision does not appear to us to be a speaking order giving reasons in the order. This was the bounden duty of the Board under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1872. We may add that once a lower functionary makes a recommendation with reasons, the higher functionary may agree with it and need not record his reasons. But if higher functionary disagrees with recommendations of a lower functionary, such order of higher functionary must carry its own reasons. We have also noted that additional information is contained in letter dated 3-8-2007 which information finds mention neither in the note by the President nor in the minutes of the Board. It appears to be an attempt by the writer of the letter at justifying decision by the Board with reasons which, at least the record reflects, were not before the Board when it was making decision.
8. We consequently set aside the order dated August 3, 2007 and remand the matter to the Board of Directors to consider afresh the application of the petitioner and then decide it by passing a well