ABDUL HAMID KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant, a Member of the PCS (EB), has filed this appeal against the order dated 9-3-1992 of respondent No. 1/Additional Chief Secretary rejecting his representation for pro forma promotion as AC/ADC (BPS-18) with effect from 21-12-1988.
2. The cases of 45 EACs (BS-17), including the appellant, were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting held on 10-8-1988. The Committee deferred the case of the appellant as 'his ACRs were found mostly average' and observed that ' he should earn at least one good/very good ACR'. His case was again put up before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration on 10-8-1989. The Committee reviewed his overall record of service which was found to be mostly good. He was given advisory remarks in his ACRs for the period 1-1-1980 to 2-10- 1980, 13-5-1982 to 31-12-1982, 27-8-1983 to 31-12-1983 and 1-1-1985 to 31-12-1985. However, no adverse remarks have been recorded against his work or his integrity". Accordingly, the Committee recommended his case for promotion. In this meeting the Committee also approved the names of M/s. Wasim Ahmed Nasir Bhatti and Asghar Ali Cheema whose cases had similarly been deferred earlier. The three officers later applied for pro forma promotion. The cases of his two colleagues were considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 9-4-1991 which cleared them for pro forma promotion with the observation that though some of their ACRs were 'average', they had not been adversely reported upon in any of their ACRs and that their overall service record was satisfactory.
They were accordingly given pro forma promotion with effect from 21-12-1988. The case of the appellant came up before the Committee for consideration on 30-1-1992/1-2-1992 which did not recommend his case for pro forma promotion. The decision was based on the following observations of the Committee: "He had requested for grant of pro forma promotion as AC/ADC with effect from 21-12-1988, the date on which his next junior was so promoted. This officer was granted promotion as AC on 5-11- 1989. The record of this officer before 21-12-1988 was perused and it was found that ho, had earned the advisory remarks in his ACRs for the periods from 1-1-1980 to 2-10-1980, 13-5-1982 to 31-12-1.982, 27-3-1983 to 31-12-1983 and 1-1-1985 to 31-12-1985. His record was mostly found 'average.' and the subsequent good report after the meeting dated 10-8-1988 had no retrospective effect as such the grant of pro forma promotion was not recommended".
4. The respondent-Department was unable to defend itself against the charge of discrimination levelled by the appellant. The case of the appellant was on all fours with those of his two colleagues. The DPC has made identical observations in all the three cases while deferring their consideration. All the three officers later earned good reports in 1988 which transformed the overall record of his two colleagues from 'mostly average' to satisfactory but in the case of the appellant it was considered to have 'no retrospective effect'. The advisory remarks earned by him in 1980, 1982, 1983 and 1985 had not stood in the way of his promotion at the time when the Committee considered his case on 10-8-1989 but the same remarks became a stumbling block for his pro forma promotion subsequently. His overall service record which was found to be 'mostly good' earlier suddenly became mostly 'average' even after the addition of two good/very good reports for- the year 1988 when the Committee reconsidered his case on 30-1-1992/1-2-1992. This action of the Committee can only be termed as capricious, whimsical, arbitrary and definitely discretionary and the same cannot be allowed to continue to operate against the appellant.
Resultantly, we accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the case of the appellant shall be placed before the DPC for reconsideration on the basis of the same criterion which was made the basis for allowing pro forma promotion to M/s. Asghar Ali Cheema and Wasim Ahmed Nasir Bhatti and thereafter he shall be assigned his due seniority in the seniority list.
There are no orders as to costs.