| Case ID |
22f24c46-d48f-490a-b42d-604db16200f1 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Writ Petition No.1466 of 2021 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 16, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Islamabad High Court allowed the instant writ petition, set aside the impugned letter dated 15.04.2021 from the office of the Auditor General of Pakistan (A.G.P.), and treated the petitioner's supersession as deferment. The court directed that Zahhid Rashid be considered for promotion to BPS-20 by the Central Selection Board (C.S.B.) in its next meeting. The court emphasized that the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was not a valid ground for his supersession and highlighted procedural improprieties in the C.S.B.'s evaluation of his integrity. The court underscored the necessity for the C.S.B. to base its decisions on credible and documented evidence, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and constitutional mandates. Consequently, the petition was allowed with no order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Writ Petition No.1466 of 2021, adjudicated by the Islamabad High Court on September 16, 2022, Zahhid Rashid challenged his supersession in the Central Selection Board's (C.S.B.) recommendations for promotion to BPS-20. The case delved deep into the procedural fairness and constitutional legitimacy of the C.S.B.'s actions under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, specifically Section 199, and the Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019. The petitioner, despite strong Performance Evaluation Reports (P.E.R.s) indicating high integrity and performance, faced repeated supersession influenced by alleged discretionary biases and pending disciplinary proceedings, which were repeatedly set aside by the Federal Service Tribunal (F.S.T.). The court meticulously analyzed the legal precedents, emphasizing that mere pendency of disciplinary inquiries cannot be a legitimate reason to deny promotion, referencing pivotal cases like Ziaul Hassan v. Naseem Chaudhary and Mumtaz Ali Shah v. Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. The judgment underscored the necessity for the C.S.B. to base its decisions on tangible and documented evidence, free from hearsay and arbitrary judgments. It highlighted the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, ensuring that petitioners are confronted with any adverse material against them, a principle deeply rooted in both Islamic justice and constitutional mandates. The court's decision not only set aside the unfair supersession of Zahhid Rashid but also mandated that his supersession be treated as deferment, allowing for a fair reconsideration of his promotion in the impending C.S.B. meeting. This verdict reinforces the accountability of judicial bodies in overseeing administrative decisions, ensuring that promotions within civil services are merit-based and devoid of unlawful biases, thus promoting integrity and fairness in public service. |
| Court |
Islamabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Federation of Pakistan,
Central Selection Board,
Auditor General of Pakistan,
Secretary to the Prime Ministry
|
| Judges |
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J
|
| Lawyers |
Taimoor Aslam Khan,
Mudassar Abbas,
Arshad Mehmood Kiani,
S.M. Munawar Naqvi
|
| Petitioners |
ZAHHID RASHID
|
| Respondents |
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary to the Prime Ministry and 3 others
|
| Citations |
2023 SLD 411,
2023 PLC 251
|
| Other Citations |
Ziaul Hassan v. Naseem Chaudhary 2000 SCMR 645,
Mumtaz Ali Shah v. Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. PLD 2002 SC 1060,
Muhammad Hanif v. Province of Sindh 2011 PLC (C.S.) 534,
Salahuddin Mughal v. Province of Sindh 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1018,
Nazeer-ud-Din v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Passport and Immigration Department 2017 PLC (C.S.) 578,
Muhammad Riaz v. Government of the Punjab 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1496,
Javed Iqbal Nasir v. Managing Director, PEPCO 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1043,
Shama Khan Zafar v. District Coordination Officer, Lodhran 2014 PLC (C.S.) 948,
Muhammad Amin v. Managing Director, House Building Finance Corporation 2016 PLC (C.S.) 569,
Federation of Pakistan v. Dr. Muhammad Arif 2018 PLC (C.S.) 907,
Federation of Pakistan v. Dr. Muhammad Arif 2017 SCMR 969,
Sikandar Hayat Maken v. Federation of Pakistan 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1450,
Tahir Mahmood v. Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore 1993 PLC (C.S.) 576,
Abdul Malik v. Sabir Zameer Siddiquui 1991 SCMR 1129,
Tasleem Jan v. Muhammad Zaman 2005 SCMR 695,
Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust through Chairman and others v. Mst. Qaisra Elahi and others (2005 SCMR 678),
Messrs Dewan Salman Fiber Ltd v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretary, Revenue Department, Peshawar and others (PLD 2004 SC 441),
Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director, Pakistan Airlines Corporation Karachi and others (2002 SCMR 1034),
Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge/Returning Officer and others (1994 SCMR 1299),
Makerwal Collieries Ltd. and 2 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P and 11 others (1993 SCMR 1140),
Raziuddin v. Chairman, Pakistan Airlines Corporation and 2 others (PLD 1992 SC 531)
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973,
Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019,
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)
|
| Sections |
199,
Rule 18(3)(b),
Rule 19,
Rule 20,
S.4
|