' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J.--- Through the instant writ petition, following prayers have been made:---
(a) The impugned decision may very graciously be held as illegal, against the constitutional provisions, based upon decision not provided by any law or Rule for the time being in force hence void ab-initio having no legal effect. The requirement of undergoing SMC being not provided by any law/Rules and award of 15-marks by CSB which do not even know a person under consideration and is arbitrary act which is also not provided by any Law/Rules, repugnant to dictum of august Apex Court re: 2010 SCMR 1301 supra may be held as illegal, offensive of Article 4 of the Constitution and of no legal effect.
(b) That it may be directed to treat the SMC duly completed by the petitioner (and if at all necessary in the wake of imminent meeting of CSB in the case of the petitioner in the urgency of the matter) make evaluation of the petitioner in accordance with Para-7, Table: B Clause (e) of the Promotion Policy, 2007 (applicable to persons not required to undergo SMC) by awarding 'notional marks' in proportion to the marks obtained by the petitioner in Performance Evaluation Reports, so as to avoid biased approach. Since it is cardinal principle of law that even a slightest fear of possibility of bias in the mind of petitioner may constitute 'Bias' instead of real bias as held in a catena of judgments by the Superior Courts. The molding of relief is beseeched in view of unprecedented and peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
(c) Pending this petition a restraining order may kindly be issued directing not to treat the impugned decision as an impediment towards consideration of the petitioner for promotion and in case of imminent meeting of Central Selection Board, the notional marks provided by Para 7, Table: B, Clause (e) of the Promotion Policy, 2007 may be given to the petitioner subject to all legal and just exceptions to meet the ends of justice since this case has very peculiar facts and circumstances having no previous example and because it would not adversely affect any other person presently orin future."
2. Facts as contained in this writ petition are that the petitioner is performing his duties under Federal Board of Revenue in BPS-19. He was selected/nominated for 12th Senior Management Course for the promotion to BS-20 which was scheduled from 17-9-2017 to 2-2-2013 at Senior Management Wing, Lahore/National School of Public Policy. The petitioner joined the said Course and completed all necessary steps and requirements of the Course including last exercise of submitting Individual Research Paper hence Course stood completed by about 95%. On 24-12-2012, the Federal Tax Ombudsman passed an order of conviction against the petitioner for contempt, which was later on suspended on 8-2-2013 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner could not attend the Course for seven days owing to the reason beyond his control. The respondent No,3 held the petitioner being ousted from the Course for not attending the same for more than seven days. In this regard, the petitioner moved applications, but no response was given, hence this writ petition.
3. The petitioner, appearing in person, argued that Senior Management Wing of National Management College has stipulated that if any participant fails to attend the Course for seven days in aggregate during the period specified, notwithstanding any reason whatsoever, whether it is due to illness or any reason beyond the control of a participant or due to any hardship, it would be treated as failure to complete the Course. In this regard, he referred Para 1.23(d) of Leave Policy, wherein it is provided that any participant who misses a total of 7-days of course studies (whether with permission or otherwise) would be liable to be withdrawn from the course, as Genuineness of the reason cannot compensate for the loss of learning, therefore, no exceptions are allowed. He argued that it is a clear act of arbitrariness, as no head of a training institution or any other authority can alter the provisions of Revised Leave Rules, 1980. The petitioner has contended that he completed the course by about 95%, but respondent No,3 held him ousted from the course for not attending the same for more than seven days, which was owning to the reason beyond his control. This act of respondents is detrimental to the case of promotion in BS-20. The respondents have altered/made ineffective the provisions of the Revised Leave Rules, 1980, which is an act without jurisdiction. Moreover, the grievance of the petitioner does not come within the ambit of terms and conditions of services as provided by section 3 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. It has further been contended that petitioner has been treated arbitrarily and without any sanction of law in derogation of Article 4 of the Constitution by an act which would result in denying/no consideration for in-time promotion. Moreover, the decision made by the respondents is an utter violation of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following case-laws:---
(i) PLD 2010 SC 61, (ii) 2010 SCMR 1301, (iii) 2000 PLC (C.S.) 563, (iv) PLD 2011 SC 927, (v) 2011 PLC (C.S.) 419, (vi) AIR 1993 SC 892, (vii) PLD 2010 Lahore 498 (BD) (viii) PLD 2011 Lah.
382.
4. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned Standing Counsel that National Management College's Leave Policy stipulates that 7-days leave/absence from the course is liable to lead to withdrawal from the course, irrespective of the genuineness of the reason for absence since this does not compensate for the loss of learning. These instructions are being brought into the notice of all Divisions/ Organizations from whom nominations for the Senior Management Course are requisitioned. The petitioner was nominated for 12th Senior Management Course from 17-9-2012 to 2-2-2013 (20-weeks). The petitioner got registered himself for the above course on 15- 9-2012 and attended it till 25-12-2012. He remained absent from the course w.e.f, 26-12-2012 and did not report back till its conclusion. Since the petitioner's leave/absence from the course crossed the stipulated period of 7-days, therefore, his case was referred to NSPP. Later on, the petitioner's name was withdrawn by the Establishment Division. Since the petitioner has not fulfilled mandatory condition to become eligible for consideration for promotion to BS-20 in view of incomplete course, which is a pre-requisite therefore, instant writ petition preferred by the petitioner merits no consideration.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The contention of the petitioner with regard to his absence of one day more than 7-days prescribed by the Leave Policy does not appear to be correct in view of report/comments submitted by respondent No,3. This contention has not been rebutted, which clarifies the attendance of the petitioner from 17-9-2012 to 25-12-2012 i.e, 100-days out of 139-days of the course. He was Registered for the course on 15-9-2012, attended the same till 25-12-2012 and remained absent from 26-12-2012 till conclusion of the course, thus; he crossed the stipulated period of 7 days. As a result, the case of the petitioner was internally processed and finally it was forwarded to the Establishment Division for onward decision, which was subsequently made through the impugned order.
7. From the record, it is apparent that petitioner remained absent from the course for more than 23-days without any intimation, which even, he should have communicated from the jail, if convicted by the Federal Tax Ombudsman in contempt case. This burden to intimate the respondents in this regard was on the shoulders of the petitioner, which he did not exhaust, hence adverse orders were passed, which appear to be with application of Leave Policy.
8. Moreover, the petitioner has not challenged the Leave Policy therefore, relief claimed in the present form, does not substantiate from the record, hence finding no substance in this writ petition, same is dismissed.