Pir MUHAMMAD QURESHI vs CHAIRMAN, POF BOARD, WAH CANTT. And 5
The petitioner, an officer in the Pakistan Ordnance Factory, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal regarding his supersession for promotion. The petitioner had previously challenged adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Reports (A.C.R.) for 1986 and 1987, which were initially expunged by the Tribunal. Despite this, the petitioner was superseded for promotion to BPS-20 by his juniors. Although the Tribunal initially directed his promotion, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to implead the promoted incumbents. Upon remand, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that authorities failed to consider his corrected A.C.Rs. and that a promoted junior lacked the requisite N.I.P.A. course qualification. The Supreme Court found substance in these contentions, noting that the petitioner's promotion consideration was based on outdated, adverse remarks rather than his corrected records. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the authorities erred in ignoring the corrected A.C.Rs. and the qualification requirements for the promoted juniors.
- Does the failure of authorities to consider corrected Annual Confidential Reports when determining promotion eligibility constitute a valid ground for judicial review?
- Can an officer be superseded for promotion based on adverse remarks that have been subsequently expunged?
- Whether the lack of mandatory training qualifications, such as the N.I.P.A. course, renders a promotion of a junior officer legally challengeable?
ORDER
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17-5-1994 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is an officer in Pakistan Ordnance Factory, P.O.F., Wah Cantt. While serving in Inspection Department, Wah, as Superintendent in years 1986 and 1987 he earned adverse remarks "not fit for promotion" in his A.C.R. According to the petitioner the remarks were not communicated- to him. On coming to know such adverse remarks he 'made departmental appeal to the Secretary, Establishment Division, challenging the adverse remarks as well as supersession by promotion of his next juniors on the basis of uncommunicated adverse remarks. On getting no response from his authorities he challenged the adverse remarks and also his supersession before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal bifurcated his case into to parts. Regarding the adverse remarks the Tribunal passed the order as under: "For the reasons recorded above the appeal is allowed to the extent that the remarks in the appellant's A.C.R for the year 1986 that he was not yet fit for promotion is expunged and he will be supposed to have been placed in the column 'fit for promotion on his turn'; and the original A.C.R for the year 1987 shall stand replaced by the revised A.C.R for that year which does not contain any adverse remarks. No order is made for costs. "
3. In respect of his supersession for promotion the Tribunal held:-- "For the reasons recorded above that there was no justification for superseding the appellant in his promotion to BPS-20, we allow the appeal and direct that the appellant shall be deemed to have been promoted on the day his next junior Mr. Abdul Quddus was promoted and he shall be given all the monetary benefits."
4. The Federation challenged the last order before the Supreme Court on 2-2-1994 and this Court remanded the case to the Tribunal with the direction of hearing the appeal after impleading the to incumbents, who have been actually, promoted against above to technical posts. On direction of this Court the petitioner amended his appeal and included the names of Abdul Quddus Khan, Ehsan ul Haq and Muhammad Yousuf Goraya as respondents. However, on 17-5-1994 the Tribunal dismissed his appeal. '
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the authorities had not considered the corrected A.C.Rs. Of 1986 and 1987 of the petitioner but on the old remarks "not fit for promotion" he was not considered for promotion. He further contended that respondent Abdul Quddus Khan had not done N. I. P. A Course and as such he was not qualified for the promotion.
There is substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for petitioner. We are, therefore, inclined to grant leave to appeal to consider the points raised by the petitioner. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.