Moazzam Hayat, Member.--Appellant Muhammad Aslam is a Deputy Director (Accounts). He is aggrieved by order dated 21.04.2011 by which Respondent No, 3 Syed Hassan Aamir was promoted as Director on acting charge basis whereas he was ignored due to unpleasant reputation. His departmental appeal dated 03.05.2011 was not responded. Hence this appeal.
2. It is maintained by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had good record of service, therefore, he could not be ignored for promotion by the DPC/CSB. Thus the contention of the appellant is that he was not properly considered by the DPC/CSB for promotion on acting charge basis.
3. The appeal is resisted by the respondents. It is stated that the appellant did not have good reputation as reflected in his PERs for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004, therefore, he was not considered by the DPC to be fit for promotion.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the record.
5. Promotions on acting charge basis are made under Rule 8(4) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. Under sub-rule (5) an appointment on acting charge basis has to be made on the recommendations of the DPC, or CSB, as the case may be. Since promotion on acting charge basis is made on the recommendation of the DPC/CSB it shall be made in the same manner in which regular promotion is made. The DPC or the CSB has to give a meaningful consideration to the case of all the civil servants Who are included in the list of prospective candidates. The appellant was admittedly senior to Respondent No,
3. It is stated that his PERs for the years 2002, 2003 and 2004 were not good. It is submitted by his learned counsel that adverse remarks given to him in the year 2004 have since been expunged. This statement has not controverted. The contention of the appellant that in the years 2005 to 2010 he had earned excellent reports has also not been controverted. We fail to understand as to why the DPC had not taken into consideration his latest PERs and had profound to consider the PERs for the years 2002 and 2003. These reports were seven/eight years old. While considering the promotion of a civil servant normally three to five years PERs are taken into consideration. The DPC should have thus considered the PERs of the appellant for the years 2006 onwards. They should not have relied on the entries made in his PERs for the years 2002 and 2003. We are constrained to hold that the DPC had not given a meaningful consideration to the claim of the appellant.
6. Mr. Faiz Ahmed Jandran, counsel for Respondent No, 3, has vehemently argued that acting charge promotion given to Respondent No, 3 shall not disturb the seniority of the appellant, therefore, the present appeal is not competent. We agree with him to this extent that the seniority of the appellant is not disturbed by the acting charge promotion of Respondent No, .3 but we do not agree with him that the DPC/CSB had not committed any irregularity in preferring Respondent No, 3 over the appellant. Promotion on acting charge basis, given for a single day to a junior, gives a cause of grievance to the seniors. During the period for which such appointment is made the seniors shall have to work under junior. This will create heartburning and shall also cause frustration. Frustration leads to corruption. If not to corruption, it is definately violative of principles of good governance. A senior can not be ignored for even for acting charge promotion if he has a good record of service. The Government is precluded .from adopting pick and chose policy in making promotions on acting charge basis especially when it has framed Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. Had such promotions not been akin to regular promotions the institution of DPC/CSB would not have been introduced for making recommendations.
7. In view of the above, we hold that the respondents had committed an irregularity in not giving proper consideration to the claim of the appellant for promotion on acting charge basis. The impugned order dated 21.04.2011 is, therefore, set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the claim of the appellant in the light of observations given above.
8. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Parties shall be informed accordingly.