This is second petition on the subject by the petitioner against his deferment for promotion to the post of BS-19 from BS-18. The reasons for deferment dated 21.05.2020 are reproduced hereunder: 14/14 Mr. Tariq Mahmood Bukhari, Additional Secretary (Dev.)
DepartmentThe Board examined the service record, posting profile, and general reputation of the officer in detail. The LG&CD Board in its collective wisdom observed that the officer did not have a competitive advantage as compared to his other peers.
Deferred for promotion to the post of Additional Secretary/Additional Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner and other equivalent posts (BS-19) on regular basis with the observation that his performance may be closely watched for one more year and a Special Report specifying whether the officer has achieved objectives/targets to be fixed by the Department or otherwise may be sought over and above his PER for the same period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been deferred thrice without giving any cogent reason under the law. In the last deferment, it is again observed that petitioner did not have any competitive advantage as compared to other peers. Learned counsel submits that in earlier round of litigation, five officers had assailed deferment of promotion and a direction was given for reconsideration of the promotion. Contends that four out of five of ficers have already been promoted, however , the petitioner is again deferred.
On maintainability of this petition, learned counsel submits that jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal is barred under Section 4(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 ("Act of 1974"), as the petitioner has been deferred.
2. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab assisted by Mr. Ahmad Hasan Shahzad, Deputy Secretary (S&GAD) has not opposed the facts narrated above, however , submits that promotion in question is against selection post for which criteria is not seniority-cum-fitness. The aspirants are recommended fit for promotion on competitive basis and the most suitable person is promoted. Also submits that petitioner , if promoted, would be given proforma promotion from the date of promotion of his juniors.
The Deputy Secretary is confronted to show from record that each time, different reasons were given after mentioning the earlier grounds for deferment. He could not show it from the record. It is also apprised that petitioner's reports, in addition to PERs, are sought which will also be considered while considering the petitioner for promotion on completion of one year deferment time starting from 21.04.2020.
3. Heard. Record perused,
4. In this Court's opinion, consistent deferment without giving any reasons and in absence of comparing the earlier reasons cannot be called fair consideration for promotion even for a selection post. Mere use of phrase 'officer did not have a competitive advantage as compared to his other peers' is not sufficient reason, therefore, it is directed that petitioner be considered for promot ion in the forthcoming DPC, even if one year time of deferment is not complete. In case the Board decides against the petitioner , the same should be done with speaking reasons, while comparing it with earlier reasons by identifying the areas in which petitioner does not compete with others.
Needless to observe that any information, not part of PERs, if used for consideration of promotion shall be supported by or under the law .
Disposed of.