2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

This order shall dispose of Writ Petition No. 903 of 2007, Writ Petition No.904 of 2007 and Writ Petition No. 912 of 2007, as common questions are involved in them.

2. The petitioners in all the writ petitions being officers in BS-19 Pakistan Audit and Accounts Service are aggrieved of their supersession by the Central Selection Board by terming them unsuitable for promotion while juniors to them having less merit, as mentioned in the writ petitions have been promoted vide the impugned notification in violation of the promotion policy including seniority, length of service with reference to some reports collected by the Intelligence Agencies.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they along with other officers were to be considered for promotion form BPS-19 to BPS-20 and in this regard a meeting of Central Selection Board-respondent No.2 was convened but they were superseded in the previous meeting by the Central Selection Board on the basis of some special reports of the Intelligence Agencies.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were fully qualified, eligible and fit for promotion for the said post but they were superseded on the adverse report of unspecified intelligence agency in respect of their integrity which were neither communicated nor confronted them with the same. Therefore in such an eventuality, their promotion cannot be withheld on the basis of such reports. In this regard reliance has been upon the cases of Muhammad Akbar Khan Hoti v. Federation of Pakistan 2006 PLC (C.S.) 619 and Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas and Safron, Government of Pakistan, Pak. Secretariat, Islamabad 2003 PLC (C.S.) 503.

5. In the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents, it has been stated that the writ petitions are not maintainable. Beside, they took an explicit stand that the petitioners have not been considered for promotion because of reports of the concerned intelligence agency to the effect that they are not enjoying good reputation.

6. So far as the objection regarding maintainability of these petitions is concerned suffice it is to say that the case of the petitioners does not fall in the terms and conditions of a civil servant merely because against the decisions/orders of departmental Authorities regarding the fitness or otherwise of the petitioners for promotion to a higher post no appeal is competent before the Service Tribunal. Therefore, the writ petitions are maintainable. In this behalf, reference can be made to the case reported as Shafi Muhammad Mughal v. Secretary Establishment Division and others 2001 SCMR 1446.

7. The petitioners were superseded by the Central Selection Board merely because of the reports of the Intelligence Agencies, but admittedly neither these reports were communicated to them nor were they confronted with same. Even the details whereof were neither given in the proceedings of the Central Selection Board nor in the comments submitted by the respondents. In alike circumstances, this Court vide orders dated 21-3-2006 and 19-3-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.195 of 2006 and Writ Petition No. 11 of 2007, the reports of the intelligence agencies were declared as without lawful authority, supersession made on their basis was set aside and the Central Selection Board was directed to consider the case of the petitioner without being influenced by the report of any intelligence agency. As a matter of fact, no appeal was preferred by the respondents, therefore, the orders of this Court passed in both the aforesaid cases had attained finality.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Attorney General submits that in view of the similarity of the facts and circumstances of these cases with the writ petitions, referred to above, the instant writ petitions may be disposed of accordingly.

9. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons, these writ petitions are accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms of the judgments dated 21-3-2006 and 19-3-2007 passed in Writ Petition No.195 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.11 of 2007 respectively. The Central Selection Board is directed to re-consider the cases of the petitioners strictly in accordance with the terms of the said judgments especially keeping in view Paras Nos.13 to 16 thereof.

10. The respondents are further directed that the matter shall be considered by the Central Selection Board in its very first meeting to be convened henceforth. The Board shall also consider the promotion/ appointment of the petitioners from the date of said earlier supersession in case they are otherwise qualified, eligible and fit for promotion to a higher post. M.U.Y./S-62/L Order accordingly.