' NAZAR MUHAMMAD SHEIKH (MEMBER).---The background of the case is that the Appellant was selected as Section Officer in the Office Management Group (OMG) in B-17 in 1975 after qualifying the Central Superior Services Examination conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). He was awarded minor penalty of censure in 1976-77. Later, Appellant was promoted to B- 18 in the year 1980 and to B-19 in the year 1987 despite deduction of three marks from quantification of his ACRs in accordance with the new Promotion Policy introduced by the Government in 1982.
Appellant's case came up for promotion to B-20 in June, 2002 before the Central Selection Board
(CSB) and he came to know that Private Respondents Nos.2 to 6 who were junior to him were recommended for promotion by the CSB. Consequently, he filed departmental representation on 31-8-2002 which remained unresponded and in the meanwhile promotion of Private Respondents Nos.2 to 6 was formalized through Notifications issued on 13 9-2002, 17-9-2002 and 12-9-2002 respectively. Appellant's departmental representation dated 31-8-2002 was also rejected vide respondents' memorandum on 14-9-2002 as not maintainatle under section 27(2) of the Civil Servant Act, 1973 which has compelled him to file this appeal before the Tribunal in terms of section 4 read with section 2 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. Shah Abdur Rashid, the learned counsel for the Appellant articulated his arguments at great length. He contended that supersession of the Appellant was in violation of law and rules. He argued that the system of quantification of ACRs was stipulated in the new Promotion Policy introduced in 1982 which is in conflict with section 3 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 wherein it has been provided that terms and conditions of service of a civil servant cannot be changed to his disadvantage and, as such, this Policy could not be made applicable retrospectively. He stated that prior to 1982, promotions of civil servants were made without quantification of ACRs, He further asserted that three marks having been deducted at the time of the Appellant's promotion to B-18 and B-19, this deduction should not have been made again while considering his case of promotion to B-20 as it would amount to vexing him twice. In this regard, he recalled the FST's judgment in Appeal No,30(R) of 1992 in the case of Ejaz Hussain Malik v. Federation of Pakistan and in Appeal No,1275(R) of 1999 in the case of Said Akbar Afridi v. Federation 'of Pakistan which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Petition No,235 of 1993. He also contended that deduction of three marks again for minor penalty imposed on the Appellant at the time of his promotion to B-20 was, therefore, illegal. He further argued that the appellant's quantification score was reduced to 73 marks after deduction of 3 marks for minor penalty of censure imposed on him in 1976-77 but it was still more than the threshold i,e, 70 marks required for promotion to B-20 and, therefore, his supersession was unwarranted. He also asserted that the decision of the CSB to ignore the appellant for promotion to B-20 is in conflict with section 26 of the General Clauses Act of 1897 as he had already been penalized by deduction of three marks earlier from his quantification chart. He also asserted that the appellant's supersession on the basis of "Best of the Best" policy was discriminatory and is, therefore, not sustainable.
3. Concluding his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the respondent be directed to reconvene the CSB to reconsider Appellant's case for promotion from the date his junior was promoted.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and referred to the Appellant's prayer in his Memo. Of Appeal. He stated that the Appellant's promotion case was again considered by the CSB in its meeting held on 3-6-2003 but was superseded again in the light of "Best of the Best" policy. He further argued that according to section 9(2)(a) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 promotion to selection posts is required to be made on the basis of selection on merit and that the Appellant was duly considered for promotion by CSB in its meeting held on 22-6-2002 but was recommended for supersession in view of better comparative of the Private Respondents. He stated that the Appellant's supersession was later, on his representation to the Chief Executive of Pakistan, was converted into deferment. He further contended that there can be no representation for promotion in terms of section 22(2) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and even the FST cannot consider such appeals in the light of section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. He also asserted that promotion is not a vested right as held by the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the respondent cited rulings reported in 2002 PLC (C.S.) 212, 2001 SCMR1446 and 2001 PLC (C.S.) 157.
6. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the FST was empowered to direct the Respondent for granting promotion of a civil servant from the date his juniors were promoted as he.Has been unjustly denied his promotion. In this regard, he cited FST's ruling reporting in 1999 PLC (C.S.) 587 wherein the Tribunal had ruled as under:- "6 ...... Thus, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that the promotion of the appellant may be ante-dated to 10-7-1984 when his other colleagues were promoted. He may be deemed to have been promoted with effect from the said date with all consequential benefits.
Keeping in view the earlier judgment in his case, referred to hereinabove, we make no order as to costs." .
' He also referred to the apex Court's ruling reported PLD 1992 SC 144 in this regard. He further argued that though posts in B-20 were selection posts but while considering civil servants for promotion to B-20, it was mandatory that seniority of a civil servant should be assigned due weightage and in this regard referred to Establishment Division's instructions contained in its U.O.
No,1/21/75-D.II dated 9-7-1975' at page 227 of the Estacode 2000 wherein it has been prescribed that; "2. Even for "selection post", the persons have to be considered in the order of their seniority."
' He next argued that the supersession of the Appellant was wrong and arbitrary. In support of his contention, he also cited ruling reported in 2004 YLR 1010 wherein their Lorships ruled as under: "6. Having thus examined the file I do find that all the said four grounds stated by the Departmental Committee for not promoting the petitioner are absolutely incorrect. This deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent and the said Committee to deprive the petitioner of promotion for which he is otherwise eligible constitute a mala fide act which cannot be sustained."
' He also flagged ruling of the apex Court reported in PLD 1987 SC 172 wherein it was held as under:- - "The amplitude of the power enjoyed by the Service Tribunal as indicated by this Court in M. Yamin Qureshis case (1) demands that all the material taken into consideration by the departmental authorities should ordinarily be made available to the Tribunal instead of leaving to wade through Manual of Instructions and memoranda issuing from time to time to which neither the Tribunal nor the parties or their lawyers have ready access and the assistance rendered at the bar in such cases is less than adequate."
7. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel for both sides, examined the record and perused the citations flagged by them.
8. The core issue in this appeal is the Appellant's supersession by CSB for promotion to B-20. We will first address the concerns of the respondents' side against this appeal. The standard arguments by the respondents' learned counsel were as under:--
(i) Promotion is not a vested right of any civil servant.
(ii) Appeal against promotion is not maintainable under section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and section 22 of Civil Servants Act, 1973.
(iii) FST has no jurisdiction to question the wisdom of the CSB.
(iv) Appeal for promotion against a selection post is not sustainable as it is based on the "best of the best" policy.
(v) CSB duly considered the Appellant and decided to supersede him in view of his indifferent service record.
' The learned counsel for the respondent cited ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Government of Pakistan and others v. Hamid Akhtar Niazi reported in 2003 PLC (C.S.) 212 wherein it has been held as under:-- "22. Section 9 of the Act of 1973 deals with "Promotion". It may be regarding "Selection Post" or "non- selection post". In case of selection post, as involved in these matters, the criterion for promotion is merit while in case of non-selection post it is done on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. No civil servant can ask for promotion as a right, and the giving refusal of promotion is matter, which is within the exclusive domain of the Government/executive authority. If a promotion is denied to a civil servant it could not be termed as denial of any fundamental right.
23. Perusal of section 9 of the Act of 1973 unequivocally postulates that criterion of selection for promotion to the higher-grade rests upon decision of the competent authority. No other forum/authority can assume the duties, which specifically have been assigned to the competent authority."
' Respondents' learned counsel also referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Shafi M. Mughal v. Secretary Establishment reported in 2001 SCMR 1446 wherein it was maintained by their Lordships as follows:-- "11. It is settled law that Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person for promotion to higher post or grade."
' Respondents' learned counsel also recalled the ruling of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court in the case of Ghulam Jilani v. Government of Punjab reported in 2001 PLC (C.S.) 157 wherein it was decided as under:-- "The trend of the judicial authority on the subject, therefore, is fairly indicative that in a matter relating to the promotion of a civil servant it is the competent authority alone which has the exclusive authority to determine the fitness or otherwise of a civil servant on the basis of subjective evaluation of the record of the civil servant and interference by any other forum (Tribunal or Court) as far as possible is not visualized. That appears to be the reason that the same has been kept out of purview of the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal even. What at the most a civil servant can claim is that he is entitled to be considered. For promotion but has no right to be declared by the Court .That he is fit for promotion; that is a domain of the competent Authority alone."
' Besides these rulings cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, we are also conscious of other rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein similar principles have been prescribed. In their ruling reported in 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1298 their Lorships ruled that promotion is noV a vested right.
Almost identical similar principles are also enshrined in the ruling reported in PLD 2003 SC 110, 2001 PLC (C.S.) 452; NLR Civil. Lahore 559, 1999 TD (Service) 62, 1990 SCMR 927 and 1990 SCMR 1321.
9. The underlying rationale of these rulings cited above are that every civil servant eligible for promotion who meets all the requirements of promotion has an inalienable vested right to be considered for promotion by the competent forum which should have all details of his service career and he should meet the prescribed criteria as laid down by the Government in its Promotion Policy but cannot claim promotion as a matter of right. Further, that no forum can sit on judgment of the relevant Selection/Promotion Board as to whether a civil servant has been correctly recommended for promotion, deferment or supersession.
10. With this backdrop, now the question arises whether a civil servant who is aggrieved by the adverse decision of the CAB can agitate his grievance before the FST and whether this Tribunal can intervene in the light of the provisions of the section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which, inter alia, reads as under:--- "(b) no appeal shall Be to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade;"
' The plain reading of this section bars the FST from entertaining such appeals for promotion but the parameters of section -4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 have, however, been enlarged by various rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has substantively and substantially broadened the jurisdiction of this Tribunal in promotion matter. In this context, we refer to the recent ruling of the apex Court reported in 2003 PLC (C.S.) 503 and 2001 PLC (C.S.) 878 wherein objective evaluation of the civil servants service record by the Selection. Board is stressed while considering him for promotion and also that promotion is a vested right of a civil servant. The operative part of Hon'ble Supreme Court's order read as under:-- ' 2003 PLC (C.S.) 503 "7. The decision as to fitness and suitability of an officer for promotion may be subjective but it has to be arrived at by applying an objective process to ensure that the course of justice is not deflected."
"8. The Annual Confidential Reports may not be conclusive to determine fitness and suitability of an officer for promotion yet if an officer is to be superseded on the allegation of doubtful reputation, the opinion decision of the Selection Board must be based on some tangible material.
"10. The formula for quantification of the Confidential Reports has also been appended to these guidelines, according to which, deduction of marks has been provided for major penalty and the adverse remarks and the formula to work, out aggregate score of integrity has also been- specified. The quantification formula aforesaid indicates that even the officers upon whom major penalty has been imposed or adverse A.C.Rs, are recorded not do become outcast for the purpose of promotion. Thus, quantification of the C.Rs, is of paramount importance. This quantification formula, in our view, is intended to structure the discretion of the Board to ensure just and fair treatment to the contenders for promotion."(Underlining is done by us for emphasis)
' 2001 PLC (C.S.) 878 ' "Thus, promotion in the prescribed manner, through prescribed forum and under the orders of the competent Authority is one of the vested rights of the civil servant, subject to criteria laid down under relevant laws." (Underlining is done by us for emphasis)
' We also rely on the ruling reported in MD 2003 SC 175 which reads as under:-- "6. Lengthy arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the parties on the question of existence or otherwise of a vested right to claim pro forma promotion. We need not discuss the same in view of the observations made in Walyat Ali Mir v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (1995 SCMR 650) that although the dictum that no employee has a vested right for promotion is correct yet where rules, regulations and policy have been framed for regulating appointment and promotion, any breach or deviation for mala fide reasons or due to arbitrary act of competent Authority would entitle an aggrieved person to challenge the same." (Underlining is done by us for emphasis)
' Furthermore, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its ruling in the case of`Zafar Ullah Baloch v. Government of Balochistan reported in 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1002 has ruled as under:- "5. Undoubtedly eligibility for promotion of the aggrieved person can be subjected to judicial scrutiny .By the Service Tribunal because it relates to the terms and conditions of his service as it has been held by this Court in number of reported judgments. For ready reference reliance is placed on the case of (i) Mian Abdul Malik v. Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui and 4 others (1991 SCMR 1129), (ii) Muhammad Anis and others v. Abdul Haseeb and others (PLD 1994 SC 539).
6. As far as fitness of a civil servant to hold a next higher post is concerned depends upon his performance which he had been showing during the period prescribed for promotion to next grade and it is to be determined on the basis of material placed before competent authority including Annual Confidential Reports etc. The performance is to be evaluated on quantifying the marks secured by him as per the in vogue formula and where a right to consider him for promotion has been claimed on the strength of arguments that he has been bypassed in violation of the Promotion Policy etc. The Service Tribunal can examine the question of his fitness as well as held by this Court in Muhammad Rahim Khan v. The Chief .Secretary, N.-W.F.P. And 4 others (1999 SCMR 1605)." (Underlining is done by us for. Emphasis)
' In its latest judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Pakistan v. Hamid Akhtar Niazi PLD 2003 SC 110 has ruled that the Selection/Promotion Board have to formulate their recommendations in respect of civil servants' promotion strictly in accordance with the Promotion Policy and Government's rules on the subject. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:-- "(a) Promotion-- ' Promotion to selection post is always to be processed through the Central Selection Board in accordance with requirement of Estacode, 2001 (pages 284 to 287) for promotion to grades 19, 20 an 21 respectively".
' In the case of Dr. M. Yousaf v. Government of Punjab, the Punjab Service Tribunal in its ruling reported in 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1071 laid down the following principle:-
5. In the matter of promotion learned Court held that there was no cavil that no employee has vested right of promotion which may be correct yet where rules, regulations and policy have been framed for regulating appointment and promotion, any breach and deviation either due to any mala fide reasons or due to arbitrary act of competent authority would entitle aggrieved person to challenge the same."
' Sindh Service Tribunal in its judgment in the case.Of Khalid Mehmood v. Secretary Government of Sindh, Livestock and Fisheries Department reported in 2001 PLC (C.S.) 654 enunciated the following principle:-- "Under such circumstances the scope of the present appeal is confined before this Tribunal to see whether the Departmental Promotion Committee evaluated the appellant in accordance with the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and as well as the Promotion Policy. If there is no error apparent on the face of record nor there is any violation of the principle to evaluate the officer for further promotion. We are mindful that the fitness so determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee will be out of the place of our jurisdiction, the objection which has accordingly been taken before us by the learned Assistant Advocate-General Sindh.
' In case we find conclusion arrived at by the Departmental Promotion Committee was in violation of principle of promotion policy and so also the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on the subject we would be within our jurisdiction to hold that appellant is entitled to the Pro forma Promotion from the date his juniors were promoted. Therefore, another feature of this appeal is that whether relief appellant is entitled to or can be granted would be grant of pro forma promotion and not the assessm ent of fitness because the DPC determines the fitness for promotion at a particular time." (Underlining is done by us for emphasis)
' In the case of Muhammad Rahim Khan v. Secretary, N.-W.F.P. Reported in 1999 SCMR 1605, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ruled as under:-- "We would, therefore, grant leave to the petitioner to consider whether the material placed before the Provincial Selection Board, truly and faithfully, reflected the qualifications of the contestants and whether on the basis of the available criteria the recommendation of the Selection Board was or was not influenced in a manner, affecting correct appraisal and assessment of respective merits of the contestants, of which the Board was the repository and which clearly, must have weighed with the Competent Authority in determining the relevant fitness."
11. The above cited ruling referred to by in para. 10 supra enshrine. The following parameters for the FST to deal with the matters relating to promotion:
(i) Promotion is a vested right and every civil servant has legitimate expectancy to graduate upto higher echelons in the service career.
(ii) CSB/Promotion Board has to consider civil servants, cases for promotion strictly in accordance with the prescribed Promotion Policy, rules and Government instructions.
(iii) CSB/Promotion Board has to evaluate civil servants career strictly quantification of their ACRs which was introduced to minimize its arbitrariness and excessive discretion.
(iv) FST has jurisdiction to ensure that the CSB/Promotion Board has formulated their recommendations in respect of promotion matters of the civil servants strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Servant Act, 1973 Promotion Policy and Civil Servants (Appointment Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973.
12. It would, therefore, may be relevant to first recall the ingredients of the Promotion Policy and see if the Appellant measured upto the standard prescribed in the said Policy. The Promotion Policy lays down the following criteria for promotion to B-20.
"5. Post carrying basic pay scale 20 are middle management post.---Field officers are generally headed by the officers in this scale. It is, therefore, essential that in addition to the relevance of experience these officers must also have a sufficient variety. And width of experience so that:--
(i) they acquire an overview of the functions performed by these organizations within the broader framework of Government's overall objectives/activities to ensure smooth and effective management at the field level; and
(ii) they can lend pragmatism to policy formulation in assignments at the Secretariat.
Variety of experience would include experience in the field, corporations, and attached departments, different Ministries / Divisions and in other Missions abroad. For promotion to middle management posts, a civil servant must fulfil the following requirements:
(a) Qualifying Service: possess 17 years service as an officer subject to the provisions contained in Establishment Division's O.M. No,1/9/80-R-II(A), dated 2-6-1983
(b) Eligibility threashold: attain a minimum score of 70 marks in the CRs in accordance with the formula given in the Addendum.
(c) Qualifications: as prescribed by relevant recruitment rules.
(d) Relevance of Experience: possess experience relevant to the functions of the post to which promotion is being made.
(e) "Quality and Output of Work" and "Integrity" marks calculated in accordance with the formula in the Addendum shall be a crucial factor in determining the comparative merit of an officer.
(f) Variety of experience: the Selection Board should give due consideration to the nature of duties, duration and location of posts previously held by the officer. Depending on the post to. Be filled, an officer possessing well rounded experience should normally be preferred particularly if he has served with distinction in unattractive areas. While some exposure to a corporation, autonomous body or an ex-cadre assignment may be considered a positive feature, this would not be so where an officer has stayed away from his parent' cadre for too long.
(g) Training: should have successfully completed a regular course at NIPA or, an equivalent course in another institution. This requirement will be waived for officers who:
(i) have served as head of a training institution for at least one year; or
(ii) have served on the directing staff of a training institute for at least two years; or
(iii) have attended a regular course at the Staff College/NDC; or
(iv) have exceeded the age of 56 years."
' The perusal of the Appellant's career indicates that the Appellant fulfils all the pre-requisites for promotion to B-20. He has twenty-seven (27) years service which is more than the required seventeen (17) years' service and was also admittedly senior to the respondents Nos.2 to 6.
Appellant's service career indicates he has varied experience of working in twelve Ministries/Divisions besides CDA. His quantification score of 76 marks (after restoring three marks) is much higher than the minimum threshold of 70 marks and has score of over 80 marks in the two crucial elements. He was duly considered for promotion by the CSB and was ignored for promotion which has been contested by the Appellant.
13. Appellant's supersession in 2002 which was later converted into deferment was decided by the CSB. While superseding the Appellant, the CSB in its meeting held on 22-6-2002 recorded the following minute in the Appellant's case.
' Although he fulfilled the minimum threshold of 70, his performance did not meet the criteria of excellence and comparative merit and his juniors were found to be better qualified and were, therefore, recommended for promotion:"
' The CSB again superseded the Appellant in its meeting held on 3-7-2003 and 4-7-2003 and the following remarks were recorded against him: "Although he fulfilled the minimum threshold of 70, his performance did not meet the criteria of excellence and comparative merit and his juniors were found to be better qualified and were, therefore, recommended for promotion in preference to him."
' The recommendations of the CSB do not conform to the aforementioned rulings cited by us as no substantial reason has been given by the CSB to ignore Appellant for promotion. It may be further stated that the working paper submitted to the CSB does not indicate any other details except the salient feature of the civil servants. By way of illustration, Appellant's service features detailed in a pro forma attached with the working paper for the CSB reads as under:-- {{TABLE}} For promotion to BS-20 Panel Pro forma Confidential Seniority No,I5 As on 2nd June, 2003 #TBS Name Service/Group Domicile Date of joining service #TBE All Akbar Bhurgri Secretariat Sindh-R 26-5-1975 Date of Birth 1-3-1950 Date of Superannuation 28-2-2010 Educational Qualification: M.A. (Economics)
Date of Birth 1-3-1950 Date of Superannuation 28-2-2010 Date of Promotion BS-18 1983 BS-19 14-12-1984 Training Course Grade Achieved 47th Advance Course, NIPA Karachi (1989) 'A'
QUANTIFIED SCORE OF ALL ACRs IN BS-17 & ABOVE Overall Quality and Output of work Integrity Awaited reports Moral Intell 76 80 85 85 GRADING OF ACRs IN BS-19 BS . No, of Outstanding Reports No, of Very Good Reports No, of Good Reports No, of Average Reports No, of Adverse Reports 19 1 5 6 2000 -- Adverse Remarks Nil Penalities, if any, imposed under Govt. Servant (E&D) -- Rules, 1973/Removal from Service (Special Powers) Minor penalty of -- Ordinance, 2000 Censure (1977)
Posting held: -- BS-17 -- Section Officer, Cabinet Division, Rawalpindi. -- Section Officer, Finance Division, Islamabad. -- Section Officer, Manpower Division, Islamabad. -- Section Officer, M/o Commerce, Islamabad.
BS-18 Section Officer, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad.
BS-19 Deputy Secretary, EAD, Islamabad.
Addl. Commissioner, KANA.Division, Islamabad. Deputy Secretary, S&FR Division, Islamabad. Deputy Secretary, Kashmir Affairs Division, Islamabad Deputy Secretary, Defence Division, Rawalpindi.
Deputy Secretary, Local Govt. & Rural Development Division, Islamabad. -- Deputy Secretary, Water and Power; Islamabad. -- Deputy Secretary, M/o Health Islamabad since February,2003.
Note:
(i) Superseded on 22-6-2002 on comparative merits as his junior was found to be better qualified.
(ii) On his representation for promotion to BS-20 the C.E. Sectt. Vide their note dated 9th October, 2002 (copy attached) informed that the competent authority has been pleased to accept the appeal to approve conversion of supersession into deferment and further directed to place before the CSB the quantification Score without deduction of 3 marks for minor penalty imposed on him in 1977. His overall quantifiction has accordingly been done without deduction of 3 marks. Prepared by: (Sd.) Imtiaz Ahmad, Section Officer, Establishment Division, Islamabad"
13. In this background, we examined the working paper put up to the CSB in its meeting held on 22-6-2002 indicates the following comparative quantification scores of the ACRs of the respondents Nos.2 to 6 vis-a-vis the Appellant.{{TABLE}} S. No, Respondents OA Q&OP Moral Integrity Taiping/ Grading 1 Mr. Ghulam Rasool Ahpan 75 84 96 88 NIPA/'A'
2. Mr. Jan Muhammad 76 83 88 87 NIPA/'A'
3. Mr. Ateequr Rehman Malik 76 83 84 84 NIPA/ last 70%
4. Mr. Anwar Hafeez Khan 75 78 79 83 Last 70%
5. Raja M. Ikramul Haq 78 , 84 89 83 Last 70%
6. Mr. Ali Akbar Bhurgri (Appellant) 73 80 85 85 'A' {{TABLE}} ' The above matrix shows that the Appellant's score in "Overall' grading should have been 76 marks as in the light of Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision referred to earlier that there can be no repeated deduction of marks for minor penalty imposed on him. It may be pointed out that three marks deducted from the Appellant's quantification score for the minior penalty imposed on him were restored by the respondent while submitting his case for promotion to B-20 in July, 2003. Thus,.
Appellant's score in 2002 was actually 76 which is higher than Respondents Nos.2 to 6. Furthermore, M/s. Anwar Hafeez Khan, Ateequr Rehman Malik and Raja Muhammad Ikramul Haq have been graded in the "last 70%" whereas the Appellant has been graded as 'A' which means that the appellant is in "first 30% i,e, he is rated positively higher than these respondents who have superseded him.
14. It may further be pointed out that according to clause (c) of the Promotion Policy reproduced above the "Quality and Output of Work" and "Integrity" are crucial factors in determining the comparative merits of an officer. Appellant has scored 80 in "Quality and Output of Work" as compared to respondent. No,4 who has secured only 78. In "Integrity", Appellant has scored 85 which is higher than respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5 who secured 84, 83 and 83 respectively. With the above analysis of the comparative merit of the Private Respondents and the Appellant, there can be no other conclusion except that supersession of the Appellant by the CSB was surely arbitrary and very subjective rather than objective.
15. The perusal of the minutes of the CSB and the, working paper put up does not indicate any factor which should put the respondents far ahead of the Appellant who was not recommended.
The recommendations of the CSB in their meetings held on 22-6-2002 on 3-7-2003 and 4-7-2003 do not reflect the objectivity and impartiality which is mandatory prescription for the CSB. It is clearly apparent that the CSB has grossly erred in determining comparative merit of the Private Respondents and the Appellant while considering them for. Promotion to B-20. It may also be recalled that quantification system in the 1982 Promotion Policy was introduced with a view to reducing arbitrariness of the CSB but the above facts clearly demonstrate that the CSB formulated their recommendations not on merit alone but in a manner which is in total disregard of the Promotion Policy, and Government rules and instructions. Appellant's seniority and quantification score of his service record is decisively better than the Private Respondents.
16. The above discussion clearly demonstrates that the Appellant feeling aggrieved by the decision of the CSB rightly invoked FST's jurisdiction to agitate his supersession. The facts also distinctly bring out the deficiency and capriciousness of the CSB's evaluation of the Appellant's service credentials while not considering him for promotion. The CSB have unjustly superseded the Appellant whose quantification of his service career was decisively more meritorious than those of the Private Respondents who were recommended for promotion.
17. We, therefore, direct the respondents to reconvene the meeting of the CSB and reconsider the Appellant for promotion with effect from the date his juniors i,e, respondents Nos.2 to 6 were promoted as he not only meets the prescribed criteria for promotion but his record is better than the Private Respondents. This process of reconsidering the Appellant's case should be completed within a period of three months under intimation to the FST.
18. Parties be advised of this decision and they shall bear their own costs.