1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Manzoor Hussain Bhatti, District Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing: 23rd December, 1993: The appellant, Dr: Azmat‑ur‑Rehman, was promoted to BS‑19 with effect from 14‑3‑1992. He claims that he was actually entitled to promotion to BS‑19 from 26‑9‑1991 i.e. the date from which 27 Doctors junior to him were promoted as such. He submitted an application dated 26‑6‑1991 to the respondent Department asking for reasons of his non‑promotion but without any success. After he too was promoted on 24‑3‑1992, ‑he submitted a representation dated 1‑10‑1992 to the Governor for anti‑dating his promotion to 26‑5‑1991 i.e. the date of his juniors promotion. Having not received any reply he has now filed this appeal within the stipulated period.

2. It was contended by Mr. M.A. Riaz, counsel for the appellant that according to his information when his case was placed before the selection authority it was deferred because his ACRs for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 were considered `average' whereas actually these reports were on the whole `good' inasmuch as he had been graded as `A' or 'AI in all the columns in Parts II, III and IV but in Part VI: `Overall Grading' the Report Officer had rated him as `average'. Further contended that instead of taking into consideration the entire contents of the said ACRs as contained in Parts II, III and IV only the entries in Part VI were relied upon by the selection authority for assessing the appellant's eligibility for promotion. He argued that in this manner the appellant's eligibility was wrongly determined due to misreading of his confidential record. In conclusion he stated that in fact those ACRs were actually `good' and as such the case of the appellant was not liable to be deferred and that keeping in view the contents of these reports in their entirety the respondent Department be directed to affect his promotion from 26‑5‑1991.

3. Two of the answering respondents (Nos. 5 and 11) have also contended that, among others, they were senior to the appellant and, therefore, the appellant had no case against them. It will be appreciated that the inter se 'seniority of the appellant vis‑a‑vis the respondents is, not the subject‑matter of this appeal which may require to be adjudicated upon. The question before us is simple and that is whether the appellant could be promoted with effect from 26 ‑5‑1991 or not.

4. Relying on the written objections filed by the respondent‑Department it has been contended by the learned District Attorney that the appellant was considered for promotion by the Provincial Selection Board in its meeting held on 1‑4‑1991 but the case was rightly deferred due to his different service record". It has further been stated that it was due to this reason that the appellant was required to earn one more report before he could be reconsidered for promotion. Thus after the appellant had obtained a `good' report for the y9ar 1990 he was finally cleared for promotion by the Selection Authority in the meeting held on 16‑2‑1992 and thereafter promoted with effect from 24‑3‑1992.

5. This is clearly a case of misreading or non reading of service record of the appellant. I have examined the Character Roll of the appellant with the help of the representative of the respondent‑Department. In the three reports for the years 1984, 1985 and 1986 the appellant has mostly been graded as `A' and at a few places even as 'AF by the Reporting/Countersigning Officers in all the columns in Parts II, III and IV. In fact these are the columns which reflect the real assessment with regard to all the aspects of a civil servant's performance and conduct. These columns are so comprehensive that virtually no aspect of the various Waits of a civil servant is left unnoticed and unreported. Part VI has been provided in order to reflect the overall assessment based on the assessment of the individual traits as made in the specific columns of Parts II, III and IV. The instructions printed on top of Part VI at page 5 of the ACR form also provide the following guidelines for filling and completing this part of the ACR (sic).

6. This is not the first case of its kind. A similar situation was the subject matter in the cases reported as 1992 PLC (C.S.) 458 and

477. The relevant portion from the case mentioned first is reproduced below: "The adverse remarks recorded in Part VI relate to appellant's overall grading as `below average' and unfitness for promotion. It appears from the reports that in all the columns of the report, her overall grading in Part II was made average and so also in Parts III and IV, and therefore, her overall grading in Part VI should have been just `average'."

7. In the instant case the rating given in Parts II, III and IV is `good' and, therefore, the overall grading recorded in Part VI of the appellant's three ACRs should also have been `good'. Whereas the Reporting/Countersigning Officers failed to follow the aforesaid instructions referred to above, the Selection Authority also did not detect the anomaly. It is thus clearly a case of misreading of the service record of the appellant. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders in respect of the appellant are set aside. It is further directed that his case for pro forma promotion with effect from 26‑5‑1991 shall be placed before the appropriate Selection Authority for reconsideration. There are no orders as to costs. H.B.T./454/Sr.P Appeal allowed