ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has declared null and void the recommendations of the 29th meeting of the high powers selection committee, in which juniors were recommended for promotion from grade 21 to grade 22, while neglecting senior officers.
In a detailed 63-page judgment, Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas also struck down the rule that permanently disqualified officers from promotion after being examined twice but not being elevated to grade 22, terming the amendment illegal.
The court, however, rejected an argument challenging the legality of constituting the council without the presence of the prime minister and held that the meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar was in accordance with the law.
The verdict was delivered in a complaint filed by seven Grade 21 bureaucrats – Muhammad Asad Islam Madni, Murtaza Khan, Sohail Ali Khan, Asif Saifullah Paracha, Aamir Zulfiqar Khan, Owais Nauman Kundi and Amna Imran – against their non-promotion to Grade 22, with their pleas partially granted.
The court observed that Pakistan’s promotion framework could not bar officers from future consideration solely on the ground that they had been overlooked twice, noting that such a rule deprived officers of advancement even if they improved their service records.
Referring to the minutes of the board meeting, the judgment said the officers were denied promotion based on negative evaluations regarding their integrity, skills and decision-making ability, and were labeled as having average or below-average abilities.
The court found that these conclusions were not sufficiently supported by the evidence in the record and ordered that promotion decisions must be based strictly on official service records rather than personal impressions or unverified information.
It further noted that adverse findings regarding integrity were registered against Sohail Ali Khan, Murtaza Khan and Amna Imran, but these findings were not based on any basis in their service records and the adverse findings were also not shared with the officers concerned.
The board had also recorded submissions on the financial integrity and questionable financial reputation of some officers, which the court ruled required formal proceedings within the department if founded.
The judgment held that denying promotion on the basis of alleged questionable integrity while allowing an officer to continue serving at grade 21 reflected an improper exercise of discretion.
Such an approach, the court noted, effectively stigmatizes an officer without due process, deprives him of legitimate promotion, and allows the alleged allegations to lapse without any formal investigation or sanction.
