' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---The appellant Dr. Abdul Hameed Qureshi, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs (Zakat and Ushr Wing) Islamabad, has been aggrieved by a notification, dated 31-12-1996, whereby only 56 senior Joint Secretaries (BPS.21) were notified instead of notifying the entire list of 61 Joint Secretaries. Consequently he was not amongst, those who were promoted to BPS.21.
2. The appellant preferred a departmental appeal on 7-1-1997 which has not been responded to as yet, despite the lapse of 90 statutory period. Hence this appeal.
3. The brief facts of the appeal are that the appellant is a Joint Secretary. The Caretaker Government processed the case to upgrade a percentage of Joint Secretaries BPS-20 to BPS-21 on the basis of recommendation of the Central Selection Board-I as one time relief to those senior in the Gradation List. The Central Selection Board-I held its meeting and examined the case and recommended 56 Joint Secretaries to the. Competent Authority for app 11 of their upgradation to BPS-21, which was approved by the competent authority.
4. According to the appellant, his name was included in the list of Joint Secretaries approved by the competent Authority for upgradation as Senior Joint Secretaries (BPS-21) but somehow or the other, instead of notifying the entire list of 61 Joint Secretaries (BPS-21) approved by the competent Authority, the Establishment Division notified a short listed order, thereby only 56 Joint Secretaries were upgraded and the appellant was one of the left overs.
5. The appellant appearing in person, argued that since the aforementioned exercise was to provide one time relief to the Joint Secretaries (BPS.20) senior in the gradation list by upgrading a certain percentage of Joint Secretaries (BPS-20) to (BPS-21), the criteria of the seniority should have been maintained. However, the order issued by the Establishment Division did not include the name of the appellant. Resultantly a number of Joint Secretaries junior to the appellant have been upgraded. This action on the part of respondents not only distorted the criteria for the upgradation of Joint Secretaries but was also discriminatory, and therefore, it caused hardship to the appellant.
6. In view of the above submissions it has been prayed that the appeal be accepted and the seniority of the appellant in the gradation list of BPS.20 officers of the Secretariat Group be maintained and the appellant be granted relief against the aforesaid discriminatory order and the Establishment Division be asked to notify the upgradation of the appellant, as per list approved by the competent Authority, with all consequential benefits.
7. The respondents' side have filed their objections. It has been stated that CSB-I in its meetings held on 22nd and 29th December, 1996, recommended 56 Joint Secretaries for promotion to the post of senior Joint Secretaries for promotion to the post of senior Joint Secretaries (BPS-21). Those who could not meet the criteria laid down in promotion policy, were either deferred or superseded.
Those who were recommended, were subsequently approved promotion by the competent Authority.
8. The case of the appellant was considered for promotion as senior Joint Secretary in the CSB-I in its meetings held on 22nd and 29th December, 1996 but he was superseded, as his score for "Overall Assessm ent" (74) was less than the minimum threshold of 75. It has further been submitted that the Prime Minister was pleased to allow BPS.21 to 30% Joint Secretary in the Secretariat Group and re-designated them as Senior Joint Secretaries. The number of Joint Secretaries at that time being 204, 62 Joint Secretaries were to be allowed BPS-21 with the status of Senior Joint Secretaries.
However, the Board recommended only 56 Joint Secretaries for promotion as Senior Joint Secretaries and kept the remaining 5 posts reserved for the deferred officers. However, as now the report for the year 1996 has become due, all the deferred and superseded officers alongwith other will be considered against the remaining 5 posts of Joint Secretaries by the Board in its next meeting.
9. It has been brought to the notice of the Bench that the panel of officers of BPS.20 of the Secretariat Group was prepared strictly according to seniority for consideration by the CSB-1. The board considered the cases of promotion of the officers on the penal in order of seniority and recommended those officers, who fulfilled the conditions for promotion to BPS.21) posts.
10. With these submissions it has been prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
11. We have heard the parties and perused the record before us. The perusal of impugned notification reveals that the Joint Secretaries of the Secretariat Group were promoted with immediate effect to BPS-21, rather than they were upgraded as claimed by the appellant.
12. We find that "Overall assessm ent" of the appellant was 74 instead of minimum threshold of 75.
As such he was short of one point as against those who were promoted have 75 marks in overall rating or more than that. There is not a single example where threshold is less than 75 marks. As such there is no discrimination as alleged by the appellant.
13. Even otherwise, his appeal against the promotion is also hit by proviso (b) to section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 read with section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, whereby no appeal or representation shall lie on matter relating to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade. Therefore, it ousted the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
14. For the reasons recorded above the appeal having no merit is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
15. However, the respondents have mentioned vide their comments that the case of those officers who were either superseded or deferred will be considered in the next meeting after receiving their ACR for the year 1996. It is hoped that the case of the appellant will also be considered alongwith others.
16. Parties be informed.