1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

(2)??????? Dr. (Miss) Kamar Ansari: Her score in Overall Assessment (67 marks) and Quality & Output of Work (65 marks) fell short of the requisite standard (70 marks). Since 1965 the officer had been graded as Very Good in 4, Good in 13 and Average in 3 reports including her latest report for the year 1984 wherein she had been considered as `not yet fit for promotion'. She had earned average entries in Part II of her otherwise Very Good/Good reports for the following years:- Year???? ?? ???????? No. of average entries. 1967??????????????? 2 including Cooperation & Tact. 1970??????????????? 2????????? -do- 1972??????????????? 4????????? -do? 1973??????????????? 1????????? Cooperation & Tact. 1975??????????????? 6????????? including Integrity (Intellectual). 1978??????????????? 3????????? including Initiative & Drive.????? 1979??????????????? 8????????? including initiative & Drive, Quality & Output of ??????????????????????????????????? Work and Cooperation & Tact. 1980??????????????? 4????????? including Initiative & Drive. 1982??????????????? 9 ???????? including Emotional Stability and integrity (General). 1983??????????????? 11 ?????? including Emotional Stability and Initiative & Drive. In view of her mixed record and her latest average report, the Board did not clear the officer for promotion. (3) Dr. M.Z. Sheikh: His score in Overall Assessment (89 marks) and Quality & Output of Work (76 marks) was above the requisite standard. Since 1967 the officer had been graded as Very Good in 14 and Good in 5 reports. The entries in Part II of these reports were generally consistent with the Overall Assessment. The Departmental Representative spoke highly of the officer. In view of his very good record, the Board cleared the officer for promotion. The Board also examined the record of the remaining officers on the panel but it did not come up to the standard of the senior officer. It would appear that the quantification evaluation of the calibre of the respondent No.5 was much above that of the appellant. The only ground worth consideration in favour of the appellant is that one of the grounds taken into consideration for her supersession was an adverse entry in her ACR for the year 1984, which she had impugned in an appeal before this Tribunal but that appeal was still pending. it would appear from the over-all evaluation reflected in the minutes of the meeting of the Central Selection Board-11 that even if that stigma in her career were excluded, even then she could not match the respondent No.5 in the comparative merit. Thus, the appellant has hardly any case on merit.

7. The appellant cannot maintain the appeal even on legal platform. It is laid down in proviso to subsection (2) of section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 that no representation shall lie on matters relating to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post or grade. It is also laid down in second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977 that no appeal or review shall lie on matters relating to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to higher post or grade. There is also bar under proviso (b) to subsection (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to an appeal before the Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade. The decision of the High Court of Sindh in Constitutional Petition No. 693/1978 was on the basis of a statement before the Court that the petitioner therein Syed Afzal Ahmad Hydri employed in the Defence Science & Technology Organisation, Ministry of Defence, was entitled to be considered for promotion on 1st June, 1977, irrespective of the consideration of the related discipline, is not relevant to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the appeal is not maintainable under law.

8. As discussed above, the appeal is not only without merit but is also not maintainable under law, and it is dismissed as such, with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./557/Sr.F ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.