2003 PLP 423 (SCMR)

3. It was submitted by the petitioner that having earned five average reports without any adverse entry during the relevant period he was entitled to move‑over to B‑18 in view of the observations made in Muhammad Anwar v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Rawalpindi (PLD 1992 SC 144) and Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Qaisar Hayat Khan (1994 SCMR 544) that if there is no adverse report against a civil servant and he has got average reports the same would have to be treated as generally good for purpose of move‑over. The submission was opposed by the learned Deputy Attorney‑General on the strength of the rule on the subject and authority of this Court reported as Rana Manzoor‑ul‑Hassan v. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad (1995 SCMR 8).

4. The submission made by the petitioner cannot prevail as it is not in line with rule on the subject and the observations made in the case of Rana Manzoor‑ul‑Hassan (supra). Initially grant of move‑over from B‑17 to B‑18 and B‑18 to B‑19 was governed by clauses (iii) and (vi) of Office Memorandum of Finance Division (Regulation Wing‑I) No.F.l(82)‑8.3/85 dated 1‑1‑1986 which are worded thus:‑‑ Clause (iii) "For move‑over to BPS‑17 and 18 the employee should have earned from average to good reports without any adverse entry during the last five years, inclusive of the year of move‑over." Clause (vi) "For move‑over to BPS‑19, tote employee should have earned generally good reports and for move‑over to BPS‑20, at least good or higher reports without any adverse entry during the last five years, inclusive of the year of move‑over." Subsequently, vide Office Memorandum of Finance Division (Regulation Wing) No.F.7(1)‑Imp‑1/90‑Vo1.II dated 7‑2‑1991 the above clauses were substituted with the following:‑‑ "For move‑over from B‑17 to B‑18 and B‑18 to B‑19 at least two good reports without any adverse entry during the last five years inclusive of the year of moveover."

5. The rule position on the subject is too explicit to need elucidation. Besides, the rule was referred to in the case of Rana Manzoor‑ul‑Hassan (supra) and it was held that move‑over from B‑18 to B‑19 was rightly denied to the appellant as he had earned only one good report during the relevant period of 5 years and his other reports were just average.

6. The authorities cited by the petitioner are distinguishable. In the case of Muhammad Anwar (supra) the appellant had sought move‑over to B‑19 on the ground that his service record was generally good. In order to appreciate his standpoint the expression "generally good" used in clause (vi) of the Office Memorandum dated 1‑1‑1986 was interpreted and it was held as under:‑‑ "However, even with regard to the reasoning in the impugned judgment relating to the connotation of expression 'generally good' that should be equated with the technical 'good', the prefixing of the word 'generally' itself conveys that in case of 'generally good' the word 'good' would not be taken to its technical extreme. It would not be expected in case of 'generally good' that the civil servant should get formally 'good' reports. If there is no adverse report against him and he gets 'average reports' they would have to be treated as 'generally good' for purpose of move‑over. Because a report 'average' cannot be treated as adverse unless specifically so treated and then conveyed to the civil servant as an adverse report. Notwithstanding the grading regarding the average in other aspects of civil service, in the context of move‑over expression 'generally good' would, amongst others, apply to mixed sort of reports containing good and average reports. Thus in the case of appellant he had earned two specifically 'good' reports. There was no adverse report and he had earned also three average reports. The effect of all these reports was 'generally good' reports. "

7. The rule applicable at that time has been substituted by the rule highlighted above and while clause (vi) stands deleted the expression 'generally good' does not figure it the substituted rule which presently holds the field. Besides, even in that case the rule in question was considered and it was found that the appellant had earned two good reports during the last five years. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:‑‑ "In the present case undoubtedly the appellant had to his credit two 'good' reports, the remaining three reports were average. Accordingly, looked at from this angle there being no impediment, move‑over had to be granted to him. " The second authority is also distinguishable being based on the case of Muhammad Anwar (supra). Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused. M.B.A./M‑686/S ?????? Leave refused.