Supersession

2025 PLC(CS) 555 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Sched. VI, Rr. 2(p), 4(5), 18(3)(b) & 23Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityPromotion of BPS-20 Officer of Information GroupIntelligence reports alleging financial corruptionMixed reputation and questionable integritySupersessionAbsence of tangible material/evidenceEffectPrinciple of natural justice, violation of

Contention of the petitioner was that the reliance on unseen intelligence reports violated his right to due process, especially considering his earlier "Outstanding" and "Very Good" performance record

Validity

Consideration of an officer for promotion was to be based not only on the relevant law and the rules, but also on some tangible material, which could be lawfully taken into consideration, thus, unless the opinion of Selection Committee was backed by some tangible material, it could not be said that the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered in accordance with law

High Court questioned whether the Central Selection Board's concerns were based on personal knowledge or solely on the intelligence reports, demanding affidavits from CSB members

Identical nature of most affidavits raised doubts about their authenticity

One member admitted surprise at the intelligence reports, given the petitioner's performance record

It was found downright shocking for a system of justice to countenance a framework whereby an officer's career could be put in jeopardy on the basis of an intelligence report that was neither before his department before recommending him for consideration for promotion, nor was before the CSB members

Intelligence report were somewhat oxymoronic because there was nothing intelligent written in those reports

Court had been shown the reports while requesting for confidentiality, but nothing in the CSPR conferred confidentiality to such reports, and if any such attempt were to be made, it would be ultra vires the fundamental rights to information and due process under the Constitution, because no information could ever be confidential which adversely affected the civil rights of a person without confronting him with its contents with him being given due opportunity of making a defence

Principles of natural justice are to be read into each law regardless of being mentioned therein

Central Selection Board, being a semi judicial forum, was required to examine the cases of officers justly and fairly

With respect to an officer, who had already put about 20 years of his life in service, one would expect, as a minimum, for such reports to be duly documented with evidence and adequate particulars of enquiries to gather that evidence

Such reports bore no authenticity in saying "reportedly" with reference to any serious allegation, especially when such damming allegations of financial corruption contradicted the service record and would stay in the petitioner's dossier, practically killing his career beyond that date

When petitioner was never confronted with any material evidence, how would he ever be able to defend himself, which was the most egregious breach of the fundamental right to due process under Art. 10-A of the Constitution

Central Selection Board's decision was completely silent as to marks allocable to integrity

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2017 PLC(CS) 738 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

SupersessionScope

Supersession would tantamount to penalty.

2014 PLC(CS) 247 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionCivil servicePromotion"Best of the best policy"SupersessionPetitioner's deceased husband was superseded on the ground of "best of the best policy"Validity

Petitioner's husband had attained required threshold, but had not been promoted due to the policy known as "best of the best" as well as the criteria of excellence and comparative merit

"Best of the best policy" had no basis and was liable to be struck down

Respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner's late husband for promotion.

2009 PLC(CS) 534 FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL Judicial Precedent

S. 9Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2-A & 4PromotionEntitlementSupersession

Appellant was considered for promotion in year 2000, but his case was deferred for promotion for want of his A.C.Rs. for the years 1996 to 1998 and two persons junior to him were promoted

Fact that appellant was subsequently promoted had indicated that no adverse entries were there in his A.C.Rs. for the years 1996 to 1998

In the event of deferment appellant had to be promoted from the date his next juniors were considered for promotion

Deferment of promotion was distinct from supersession and was absolutely unjust and unfair to deprive appellant of promotion along with his juniors

Appellant needed to be allowed promotion from the date his juniors were promoted on the principle of "next below rule".