Promotion criteria

2023 PLC(CS) 186 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Promotion criteriaScope

Promotion standards devised by a commercial institution are distinctly and conspicuously different than those applicable to the civil servants.

2017 SCMR 969 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 9Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Rr. 7, 8 & 8-APromotion criteria

Award of 15 marks at the disposal of Central Selection Board ("Board") with 5 overriding discretionary marks and placing of civil servants in three different categories for promotion

Recommendations of the Board for deferment/supersession of civil servants

Personal whims and unfettered discretion of Members of the Board

Procedural unfairness and lack of due process

Promotion policy adopted by the Board instead of providing any evaluation structure, left it open for the Board to choose either the service dossier of the officer concerned as a source material for the evaluation of the various essential and crucial attributes of the officer, or just to rely upon the personal knowledge of its members for the said purpose

In relation to the candidate's personality profile it was left exclusively to be evaluated on the basis of the Members' knowledge, without any reference to any record

For an officer to avoid deferment or supersession, it was made essential for a candidate to obtain at least 3 out of the 5 discretionary marks in respect of "integrity/general reputation/perception"

Anomalous situation was created where an officer who may have otherwise, achieved the required threshold on the basis of evaluation of his service record, may still be superseded by the Board on the basis of the opinion harboured or nurtured by a few of its Members, and instead less deserving officer may be recommended, which could result in the degeneration of the civil service, and dissatisfaction and despondency amongst its cadres

Entire promotion process being flawed for want of a well thought out structured objective criteria, and lacking in due process, gave way to arbitrariness, ambiguity and a whimsical approach, inasmuch as the Board drifted from reliance upon the service dossier of the officer, and instead placed reliance on undefined personal opinion, and that too without qualifying it with the necessity of being based on any tangible evidence/material

Case record showed that some of the petitioners/civil servants achieved the prescribed threshold on the basis of their Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) and Training Evaluation Reports (TERs), but had been superseded on the basis of knowledge of the Board's Members, but neither any reason was given for ignoring the quantification in the service record, nor the nature and/or source of the so-called knowledge had been disclosed

Such process not only violated the requirement of adequate disclosure, but also offended the principle of fairness, due process and procedural propriety

Even otherwise the Establishment Division had not been able to show any thing adverse against the officers in their respective service dossiers

Case record further showed that in the cases of deferments of certain officers also no plausible explanation or reason had been mentioned

Supreme Court directed that the Establishment Division should place all cases which were laid before the Board through the impugned promotion process, afresh, after withdrawing the overriding effect of five (5) marks assigned for integrity/reputation etc. and removing the deviation of the focus of the Board from the service dossier to the personal knowledge of its Members; that those officers who may have been promoted on the basis of impugned promotion process shall maintain their elevated position/status, however, in the event the officers whose cases for promotion had been deferred or superseded, were through the proposed (new) process recommended for promotion, they shall maintain their seniority vis-a-vis those who were recommended for promotion through the impugned process, and may again be so recommended, so that the seniority of the left out officers and their entitlement to the consequential benefits, including prospects of their future promotion was not adversely affected

Order accordingly.

2017 PLC(CS) 1304 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 9Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Rr. 7, 8 & 8-APromotion criteria

Award of 15 marks at the disposal of Central Selection Board ("Board") with 5 overriding discretionary marks and placing of civil servants in three different categories for promotion

Recommendations of the Board for deferment/supersession of civil servants

Personal whims and unfettered discretion of Members of the Board

Procedural unfairness and lack of due process

Promotion policy adopted by the Board instead of providing any evaluation structure, left it open for the Board to choose either the service dossier of the officer concerned as a source material for the evaluation of the various essential and crucial attributes of the officer, or just to rely upon the personal knowledge of its members for the said purpose

In relation to the candidate's personality profile it was left exclusively to be evaluated on the basis of the Members' knowledge, without any reference to any record

For an officer to avoid deferment or supersession, it was made essential for a candidate to obtain at least 3 out of the 5 discretionary marks in respect of "integrity/general reputation/perception"

Anomalous situation was created where an officer who may have otherwise, achieved the required threshold on the basis of evaluation of his service record, may still be superseded by the Board on the basis of the opinion harboured or nurtured by a few of its Members, and instead less deserving officer may be recommended, which could result in the degeneration of the civil service, and dissatisfaction and despondency amongst its cadres

Entire promotion process being flawed for want of a well thought out structured objective criteria, and lacking in due process, gave way to arbitrariness, ambiguity and a whimsical approach, inasmuch as the Board drifted from reliance upon the service dossier of the officer, and instead placed reliance on undefined personal opinion, and that too without qualifying it with the necessity of being based on any tangible evidence/material

Case record showed that some of the petitioners/civil servants achieved the prescribed threshold on the basis of their Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) and Training Evaluation Reports (TERs), but had been superseded on the basis of knowledge of the Board's Members, but neither any reason was given for ignoring the quantification in the service record, nor the nature and/or source of the so-called knowledge had been disclosed

Such process not only violated the requirement of adequate disclosure, but also offended the principle of fairness, due process and procedural propriety

Even otherwise the Establishment Division had not been able to show any thing adverse against the officers in their respective service dossiers

Case record further showed that in the cases of deferments of certain officers also no plausible explanation or reason had been mentioned

Supreme Court directed that the Establishment Division should place all cases which were laid before the Board through the impugned promotion process, afresh, after withdrawing the overriding effect of five (5) marks assigned for integrity/reputation etc. and removing the deviation of the focus of the Board from the service dossier to the personal knowledge of its Members; that those officers who may have been promoted on the basis of impugned promotion process shall maintain their elevated position/status, however, in the event the officers whose cases for promotion had been deferred or superseded, were through the proposed (new) process recommended for promotion, they shall maintain their seniority vis-a-vis those who were recommended for promotion through the impugned process, and may again be so recommended, so that the seniority of the left out officers and their entitlement to the consequential benefits, including prospects of their future promotion was not adversely affected

Order accordingly.

2015 SCMR 269 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(1)(a)Civil servicePromotion, right ofPromotion criteriaJusticiability

Neither promotion nor the criteria set out to aspire for promotion could be categorized as a 'right' that could be justiceable.

2015 SCMR 269 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(1)(a)Service Tribunal, jurisdiction ofCivil servicePromotion criteriaEducational qualificationGovernment changing promotion criteria by prescribing higher educational qualificationPolicy matter

Where the Government, as a policy matter, wanted to restrict promotion to those having degrees, or create another category of such persons, it was not ultra vires of any law nor was it unreasonable

Such matter fell within the exclusive domain of the Government, which, in the absence of demonstrable mala fides could, not be assailed.

2015 PLC(CS) 962 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(1)(a)Civil servicePromotion, right ofPromotion criteriaJusticiability

Neither promotion nor the criteria set out to aspire for promotion could be categorized as a 'right' that could be justiciable.

2015 PLC(CS) 962 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(1)(a)Service Tribunal, jurisdiction ofCivil servicePromotion criteriaEducational qualificationGovernment changing promotion criteria by prescribing higher educational qualificationPolicy matter

Where the Government, as a policy matter, wanted to restrict promotion to those having degrees, or create another category of such persons, it was not ultra vires of any law nor was it unreasonable

Such matter fell within the exclusive domain of the Government, which, in the absence of demonstrable mala fides could, not be assailed.