SHAUKAT ALI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

ORDER

1. All these petitions involve similar facts and common question of law and since it was ordered in C.P. of 2007 by consent that the petition be heard and disposed of at the Katcha Peshi stage, we have decided to dispose of all these petitions by this common judgment. Basically the petitioners who are civil servants eligible for promotion to BS-20 in different departments are aggrieved by respective decisions of the Central Selection Board that despite having qualified the qualification threshold of 75% marks in terms of the ESTACODE, they were not considered for promotion. On behalf of the respondents, it was initially urged that this Court did not have any jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the same fell within the purview of the Federal Service Tribunal in terms of Article 212 of the Constitution. The objection is ex facie misconceived inasmuch as admittedly the question raised relates to the fitness and not eligibility of the petitioners to be promoted to a higher position and such position is clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal as, inter alia held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Abdul Haseeb v. Muhammad Anees PLD 1994 SC 539. Learned Standing counsel indeed appears to be correct that posts in BS-20 are selection posts and promotions are to be made on the basis of the evaluation of overall merit of civil servant rather than in routine on Seniority above. Mr. Lakho, however, pointed out the written guidelines relating to performance evaluation of civil servants contained in the ESTACODE and drew our attention to the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Muhammad Qureshi v. Chairman, EOF Board Wah Cantt. 1998 PLC (C.S.) 476, where their lordships held that the Departmental Promotion Authorities must strictly adhere to instructions contained in ESTACODE while determining criteria for promotion. Since the guidelines contained in the ESTACODE seem objectively to have determined the merit of a civil servant from all relevant aspects, i.e. competence, integrity, etc. we are of the view that the contention of the respondents to the effect that the merit of a civil servant cannot be determined on the basis of "any arithmetical fo rmulation" cannot be sustained.

2. For the foregoing reasons we would allow the petitions to the extent that the petitioners may be considered for promotion in the forthcoming meeting of the Central Selection Board notwithstanding any remarks recorded by the authorities.

3. H.B.T./S-64/K ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed