WIQAR AHMAD, J.- By way of filing instant petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, petitioners namely (1) Muhammad Saleem Awan and (2) Syed Munir Hussain (AVP Credit Administration Department and OG-I / CAD Officer Credit Administration Department National Bank of Pakistan respectively) have prayed for the following relief; "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition respondents may graciously be directed to expunge rating "C" from the Annual performance Appraisals (APRs) of the petitioners for the year 2011 to 2016 in the following manners;
1. Petitioner No.1, Muhammad Saleem Awan, AVP rating "C" may be expunged and upgrade rating as "A" for the year 2011 to 2016.
2. Petitioner No.2, Syed Munir Hussain OG-I rating "C" may be expunged and upgrading as "A" for the year 2012 to 2014.
And restore rating "A" (outstanding) awarded by the immediate supervisor / appraiser and consequential financial / carrier benefits attached to "A" rating may also be allowed to the petitioners w.e.f 2011 onwards respectively. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioners."
2. Grievance of the petitioners is that they had been performing their duties as AVP and OG-I respectively at Credit Administration Department National Bank of Pakistan, Regional Office, Abbottabad since long and with meritorious service record but had been discriminated by Head Office National Bank of Pakistan Karachi by lower grading their Annual Performance Appraisals
(APRs) while countersigning same.
3. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through record.
4. Perusal of record reveals that petitioners grading has no doubt been lowered by the Countersigning Authority but while lowering their grading, they have not been given any adverse entries in their Annual Performance Appraisals (hereinafter to be referred as APRs). It is just a matter of grading good or excellent for which they have provided grades from 1 to 5 in their Annual Performance Appraisal System. None of the entry in the APRs of both the petitioners could be termed as adverse entry. How much better performance has been delivered by which of the employee is supposed to be judged by the Institute itself. The immediate Appraisal Officer had no doubt given better grading to both the petitioners but the countersigning authority was also having its due role in the Annual Performance Appraisal devised and adopted by the Bank. While adopting Annual Performance Appraisal they had provided a sort of competitive mechanism where employees in the bank were supposed to be tested on the touchstone provided therein. Said system of grading of employees had been provided as follows; "The criteria and schedule of this exercise is given below: -
1. The appraisal should be based on individual performance for the period 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012.
2. All appraises, in addition to their appraisal forms 2012, are also required to sign their Job Objectives for the year 2013, at the same time, which should be mutually discussed and agreed upon by the appraiser and the appraise on the prescribed form.
3. The following employee categorization criteria has been set for the year 2012, which should be strictly followed: S.# Employees Categorization a. Top 10% Outstanding b. Next 20% Very Good c. Next 50% Good d. Next 15% Marginal e. Remaining 5%Needs Improvement
4. The Regional Heads would be appraised at Head Office by Strategic Policy Committee (SPC) on the basis of their cross functional KPLs.
5. The SVPs & above posted at Regional / field offices would initially be appraised by the respective Regional Heads and finally evaluated by the respective Group Chiefs / Divisional Heads at Head Office. They would, however, be made part of their respective Regional Office's bell curve.
6. The General Managers would continue to be appraised initially by the respective Regional Heads. However, they will now be finally evaluated by their functional Group Chiefs / Divisional Heads at Head Office. A separate Bell Curve of General Managers shall be formed at their respective Groups / Divisions at H.O."
5. The bank has given a structured policy for Annual Performance Appraisal of their officers. The above reproduced para-6 reveals that the General Managers were supposed to be appraised initially by the respective Regional Heads, however, they would be finally evaluated by their functional Group Chiefs at the Head Office. The Regional Head had placed both the petitioners in category "A" while in the process of their final evaluation by functional Group Chief (at the head office) their category had been converted to that of "C" which means "Good". In such process none of the fundamental right of the petitioners was found violated. Petitioners were not having a vested right to be retained in same category in which report of the immediate supervisor had placed them. The criteria devised was of such a nature that same had been competitive and performance was to be comparatively evaluated at functional levels. In such a process, finality would naturally be attached to the evaluation conducted at the office of functional Group Chiefs at Head Office. No malafide or ill-will could be pointed out by the petitioners. None of their fundamental or legally justiciable right was found violated.
6. One of the argument, advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners was that National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973 has been statutory in nature and that the policy being in contravention thereof should not be considered. We are afraid, we would not be able to agree with learned counsel for petitioners in this regard. We do not find any conflict between the rules and policy of the department. Competitive appraisal of human resource, could not be called to be irrational, unreasonable or illogical. Besides, no case of illegality or irregularity could be pointed out therein. The categorization of petitioners has also been according to Annual Performance Appraisal System of the Bank. No case for discrimination or existence of malafide on part of respondents could be made out. Appraisal of officers was internal matter of the bank in which this court cannot interfere in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.
7. In light of what has been discussed above, this petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.