IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 22 OF 2013 
 
 
Orya Maqbool Abbasi 
…. Petitioner 
Versus 
 
 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary  
Establishment & others 
…. Respondents 
 
Petitioner 
 
 
 
Mr. Orya Maqbool Abbasi, In Person 
 
 
For the Applicant  
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
(in CMA 2903/13) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For Estt. Div. & CSB 
 
Mr. Shah Khawar, Addl. AGP 
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
Malik Shakeel, J.S. (Litigation) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shahbaz Karmani, S.O. 
 
For Res. Nos.19,61 & 81 
Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Sr. ASC 
 
For Respondent No.82  
Mr. Rashid A. Rizvi, Sr. ASC 
 
For Respdts. 23, 47, 49, 
Mr. Abdur Rahim Bhatti, ASC 
53, 57, 74-76  
 
For Respondents No.28,  
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC 
43,52-54 & 58 
 
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR 
 
Respdts In person 
 
Mr. Saqib Aleem, Addl. Secy. Wafaqi Mohtasib 
Capt. Retd. Muhammad Aftab, J.S. (Cabinet) 
Mr. M. Shabbir Ahmed, Addl. Secy. MOI 
 
Date of hearing   
 
12.07.2013 
 
 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
2 
JUDGMENT 
 
IFTIKHAR 
MUHAMMAD 
CHAUDHRY, 
C.J.:- 
The 
petitioner has approached this Court under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for the 
enforcement of fundamental rights, involving question of public 
importance of outlining an objective criteria for promotions to make 
the civil service rewarding for honest officers and free from political 
pressures.  
2. 
  
The grievance of the Petitioner, as narrated in the petition, 
is non-recommendation of his name, along with so many other 
officers, for promotion from BPS 20 to 21, by the Central Selection 
Board (CSB), in its meeting held on 11-14.02.2013 and 27.02.2013,  
who according to his version were eligible for promotion but their 
cases were deferred or postponed for want of transparent objective 
criteria embodied in principle of rewarding honest officers instead of 
penalizing them by withholding their due rights contrary to Articles 3, 
9 and 14 of the Constitution. In this regard, he has made the following 
prayer:- 
 
“(a)  A free and fair enquiry of the assets of the Civil 
Servants in promotion zone and their families by 
comparing with their assets at the time when they 
joined the service. Their life style, expense on 
children education, expenses on children marriages, 
foreign tours etc., should be taken into account to 
measure the level of corruption and honestly. The 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
3 
enquiry should be made by an independent body or 
commission constituted by the Honourable Supreme 
Court. The assets of all the Civil Servants should be 
open for public scrutiny. 
(b) 
To check the political affiliations and to make the 
bureaucracy free and fair from political affiliations; 
efficiency should be linked with the level of 
independence an officer has secured during his 
service. The entire career records of each Civil 
Servant should be scrutinized before promotion, to 
check as who enjoyed better posting in which 
political party’s tenure. This will certainly present a 
clear 
picture 
of 
a 
majority 
of 
civil 
servants 
divided/loyal with different political groups, leaving a 
few independent and honourable officers aside.” 
 
 
3. 
 
Brief but relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner, 
Orya Maqbool Abbasi, joined government service on 18.10.1984 in the 
District Management Group (now “Pakistan Administrative Service” 
(PAS)). He was promoted to BPS 18 in the year 1990, BPS 19 in the 
year 1998 and BPS 20 in the year 2006. For the purpose of promotion 
of the petitioner along with others from grade 20 to 21, a meeting of 
Central Selection Board (CSB) was held on 03.10.2011, but the 
petitioner among others was not recommended for promotion. As in 
the instant case, a larger question involving the fundamental right of 
government servants to be promoted from Grade 20 to 21 was 
involved, therefore, being aggrieved from the decision of the CSB, left-
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
4 
over candidates invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Courts, 
including Islamabad High Court by instituting Writ Petition No. 
3483/2011 wherein orders were passed restraining CSB from 
undertaking further proceedings and the writ petition was ultimately 
disposed of. Relevant para therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:- 
 
“In this view of the matter instant writ petitions are 
allowed, formula of award of 15 marks on the discretion of 
CSB is declared as illegal, superficial, unconstitutional, 
against the dictums of court of apex, non-transparent, 
result 
of 
adamant 
approach, 
whimsical, 
sham, 
unprecedented, infringement to constitutional guarantees 
and principle of natural justice, therefore, same is set 
aside. The respondent Establishment Division is directed to 
implement the judgment of honourable Supreme Court, 
delivered in Civil Petitions Nos. 1083, 58 to 60, 443 and 
444 of 2010, in is letter and spirit and restructure the 
formula of award of 15 marks, in accordance with 
guidelines provided therein. All the meetings of CSB, 
therefore, are declared unconstitutional without jurisdiction 
and unjust which are held to be of no consequence”. 
 
4. 
 
It is to be pointed out that in another case Liaqat Ali 
Chugtai v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Railways (PLD 
2013 Lahore 413) the learned Lahore High Court on setting aside 
some of the recommendations of CSB, issued directions to formulate a 
well thought out Objective Criteria in accordance with the Revised 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
5 
Promotion Policy and consider the cases of the petitioners (before the 
High Court) and private respondents (therein) afresh.  
5. 
 
As a result wheroef, two meetings of the CSB were held on 
11th to 14th February, 2013 and 27th February, 2013, to consider and 
recommend promotions of officers from Grade 20 to Grade 21 of All 
Pakistan United Grades (APUG). Break up whereof is noted in the 
summary 
dated 
20th 
November, 
2012, 
moved 
by 
Secretary 
Establishment for the approval of the Prime Minister vide following 
paras of the summary: -  
3. 
To compute the vacancies for promotion of PAS officers to 
BS-20 & BS-21, the following factors have been taken 
into account: 
(i) 
Number of posts as per cadre strength in the 
Provinces. 
(ii) 
Difference between cadre strength and staffing 
position. 
(iii) 
Anticipatory vacancies due to retirements till 
31.01.2013. 
4. 
Based on the above factors, the following vacancy 
position in respect of PAS has been reckoned for 
promotion of PAS officers to BS=-21 and BS-20: 
 
 
BS-21 
BS-20 
22 
68 
 
 
6. 
 
It is to be noted that 22 vacancies were got approved on 
27th November, 2012. A second summary was moved on 9th January, 
2013 and 37 vacancies were got approved from the Prime Minister on 
24th January, 2013. Again a third summary dated 30th January, 2013 
was forwarded for approval of the Prime Minister, in view of the 
following para: - 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
6 
“34. 
Keeping the above factors into account, the vacancy 
position in respect of PAS/BS-21 has been worked out and is 
added at Annexure-XIII, which comes to 56 against the earlier 
37 vacancies already approved. Similarly, the revised vacancy 
position for promotion to BS-21 in Secretariat Group comes to 
31 against 28 already approved. As such 2/3rd share for 
Secretariat Group officers comes to 21 against 19 already 
approved and 1/3rd vacancies i.e. 10 would go to other 
Groups/Services against 09 already approved.” 
And Prime Minister gave its approval on 1st February, 2013. Breakup 
whereof is as under: - 
     Annex-XIII 
REVISED VACANCY POSITION FOR PROMOTION OF PAS OFFICERS 
FROM BS-20 TO BS-21 
A) 
Departments/Organizations 
of 
the 
Federal Government where manning is 
done by the Establishment Division 
Number of BS-21 Vacancy 
Positions 
Prime Minister Secretariat 
01 
Wafaqi Mohtasib 
02 
FBR 
01 
NPF 
01 
NDMA 
01 
TCP 
01 
NHA 
01 
PMDC 
01 
Agriculture Policy Institute 
01 
National School of Public Policy 
01 
B) Retirement of BS-22 officers belonging 
to PAS by 30.04.2013 
05 
C) Retirement of PAS/BS-21 officer by 
30.04.2013 
01 
D) Additional BS-21 position reported by 
02 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
7 
Provincial Governments  
Already approved vacancies 
37 
Total 
56 
 
7. 
 
A perusal of above breakup makes it clear that 19 
vacancies were added in the revised list, object is understandable, 
namely, to accommodate maximum persons from PAS by promoting 
them to Grade 21 against 22+56+10=88 vacancies.  
8. 
 
It is an admitted position that against above vacancies, 
candidatures of the officers out of the seniority list of Pakistan 
Administrative Service (PAS) serial No.133 were examined by CSB in 
its meetings held on 11th to 14th February and on 27th February, 2013. 
As a result whereof 49 candidates were deferred, including the 
petitioner. In his case following reasons have been assigned by 
Secretary Establishment in his concise statement: - 
“Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September & 3rd October, 
2011 for the reason that professionally not sound and unfit 
to hold higher responsibility. The Board now noted that 
said supersession was not supported by his PERs record 
particularly for the last five years which, inter-alia, rated 
him as outstanding/very good with integrity as above 
board. He did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after 
his last supersession. His PER for the year 2011 was 
required to be earned subsequent to his supersession in 
terms of para 1(a)(iv) of Revised Promotion Policy, 2007. 
The Board decided to defer him.  
He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of complete 
12 months, required under Policy.”  
9. 
 
Surprisingly, despite realizing that petitioner’s PER’s had 
not supported his supersession of 23rd, 24th September and 3rd 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
8 
October, 2011, as he is an outstanding officer and also very good 
integrity wise, but he was again deferred. Perhaps, he did not have 
PER for the year 2012-13 though he had special report in his favour 
and according to revised policy dated 11th January, 2013, special 
report for the period of deficiency, earned in the next calendar year 
would be taken in to account to complete the 12 month’s requirement 
for the purpose.  
10. 
 
It is to be observed that not only the petitioner but few 
other candidates were also subjected to the following arbitrary and 
discriminatory treatment:-  
OFFICERS RECOMMENDED FOR DEFERMENT FOR PROMOTION 
OF BS-20 OFFICERS OF PAKISTAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE 
(PAS) TO BS-21 
 
Sl. 
NO 
SEN
. 
NO. 
NAME OF 
OFFICERS 
REASONS 
6 
14 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Rashid 
Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September & 3rd 
October, 2011 for the reason that this integrity 
was not above board & professionally not sound. 
The Board now noted that said supersession was 
not supported by his PERs record particularly for 
the last five years which, inter-alia, rated him as 
very good/good with integrity as honest, reliable 
and above board. He did not earn PER one full year 
(12 months) after his last supersession. His PER 
for the year 2011 was required to be earned 
subsequent to his supersession in terms of para 
1(a)(iv) of Revised Promotion Policy 2007. The 
Board decided to defer him. 
He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of 
complete 
12 
months 
after 
supersession, 
as 
required under Policy. 
7 
17 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Rizwan Taqi 
Capt. (R) 
Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September & 3rd 
October, 2011 for the reason that his score was 
below required threshold. The Board now noted 
that said supersession was not supported by his 
PERs record particularly for the last five years 
which, inter-alia, rated him as very good/good with 
integrity as honest, reliable and above board. He 
did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after 
his last supersession. His PER for the year 2011 
was required to be earned subsequent to his 
supersession in terms of para 1(a)(iv) of Revised 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
9 
Promotion Policy 2007. The Board decided to defer 
him. 
He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of 
complete 
12 
months 
after 
supersession, 
as 
required under Policy. 
8 
19 
Mian 
M. 
Zulqarnain  
Aamir 
Maj. 
(R) 
Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September & 3rd 
October, 2011 for the reason that most unreliable, 
professionally not sound and connected with 
agencies. 
The 
Board 
now 
noted 
that 
said 
supersession was not supported by his PERs record 
particularly for the last five years which, inter-alia, 
rated him as very good/good with integrity as 
honest, reliable and above board. He did not earn 
PER one full year (12 months) after his last 
supersession. His PER for the year 2011 was 
required 
to 
be 
earned 
subsequent 
to 
his 
supersession in terms of para 1(a)(iv) of Revised 
Promotion Policy 2007. The Board decided to defer 
him. 
He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of 
complete 
12 
months 
after 
supersession, 
as 
required under Policy. 
10 
25 
Mr. Manzar 
Hayat 
Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September & 3rd 
October, 2011 for the reason that thoroughly 
corrupt and professionally not sound. The Board 
now 
noted 
that 
said 
supersession 
was 
not 
supported by his PERs record particularly for the 
last five years which, inter-alia, rated him as very 
good/good with integrity as honest, reliable and 
above board. He did not earn PER one full year (12 
months) after his last supersession. His PER for the 
year 2011 was required to be earned subsequent 
to his supersession in terms of para 1(a)(iv) of 
Revised Promotion Policy 2007. The Board decided 
to defer him. 
He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of 
complete 
12 
months 
after 
supersession, 
as 
required under Policy. 
12 
29 
Mr. Iftikhar 
Hussain 
Earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th September & 3rd 
October, 2011 for the reason that morally & 
professionally not sound. The Board now noted 
that said supersession was not supported by his 
PERs record particularly for the last five years 
which, inter-alia, rated him as very good/good with 
integrity as honest, reliable and above board. He 
did not earn PER one full year (12 months) after 
his last supersession. His PER for the year 2011 
was required to be earned subsequent to his 
supersession in terms of para 1 (a) iv of Revised 
Promotion Policy 2007. The Board decided to defer 
him. 
He is to be reconsidered on the basis of PER of 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
10
complete 
12 
months 
after 
supersession, 
as 
required under Policy. 
 
Whereas, to achieve the object for which 88 vacancies were created 
following officers were promoted: - 
OFFICERS RECOMMENDED FOR PROMOTION OF BS-20 
OFFICERS OF PAKISTAN ADMINISTRATIVE  
SERVICE (PAS) TO BS-21 
 
Sl. 
NO. 
SEN
. 
NO. 
NAME OF OFFICERS 
TOTAL 
SCORE OF 
PER & 
TRAINING 
AWARD OF 
MARKS BY CSB 
TOTAL 
SCORE 
CATE-
GORY 
MARKS 
1. 
1. 
Mr. Farooq Ahmed 
Khan 
66.98 
B 
10 
76.98 
2. 
2. 
Mr. Tariq Javed Afridi 
Maj. (R) 
61.46 
B 
15/24 
76.46 
3. 
5. 
Mr. Abdul Jalil 
63.21 
A 
12 
75.21 
4. 
8. 
Mr. Rashid Bashir 
Mazari Capt. (R) 
69.57 
B 
10 
79.57 
5. 
11. 
Mr. Tipu Mahabet 
Khan 
69.64 
A 
11 
80.64 
6. 
12. 
Mr. Athar Hussain 
Khan 
69.71 
B 
10 
79.71 
7. 
13. 
Mr. Aftab Habib 
66.48 
B 
10 
76.48 
8. 
15. 
Mr. Aijaz Ahmed 
66.65 
B 
10 
76.65 
9. 
20. 
Mr. Ahmed Yar Khan 
Sq. Ldr. 
77.12 
A 
12 
89.12 
10. 
21. 
Mr. Tariq Masud Capt 
(R) 
67.15 
B 
10 
77.15 
11. 
23. 
Mr. Ali Zaheer Hazara 
60.48 
B 
15/24 
75.48 
12. 
24. 
Mr. Shujat Ali 
74.97 
A 
12 
86.97 
13. 
26. 
Mr. Aftab Ahmad 
Maneka 
68.31 
B 
10 
78.31 
14. 
27. 
Mr. Usman Ali 
64.51 
A 
11 
75.51 
15. 
30. 
Mr. Muhammad Aslam 
Hayat 
71.38 
B 
10 
81.38 
16. 
31. 
Mr. Javaid Nisar Syed 
68.66 
B 
09 
77.66 
17. 
33. 
Mr. Mohsin S. Haqqani 
72.83 
B 
10 
82.83 
18. 
34. 
Mr. Ajaz Ali Khan 
77.24 
A 
11 
88.24 
19. 
35. 
Mr. M. Tariq Mahmood 
Pirzada 
67.30 
B 
15/24 
82.30 
20. 
37. 
Mr. Shoaib Ahmad 
Siddiqui 
74.25 
A 
11 
85.25 
21. 
38. 
Mr. Zahid Saeed Capt. 
(R) 
73.94 
A 
12 
85.94 
22. 
41. 
Dr. Hammad Uwais 
Agha 
68.64 
B 
10 
78.64 
23. 
42. 
Mr. Altaf Ezid Khan 
71.71 
B 
10 
81.71 
24. 
43. 
Mr. Shah Sahib 
65.69 
B 
10 
75.69 
25. 
45. 
Mr. Sajjad Ahmed 
75.34 
A 
11 
86.34 
26. 
46. 
Mr. Arbab Muhammad 
Arif 
76.28 
A 
12 
88.28 
27. 
49. 
Mr. Hassan Iqbal 
75.35 
A 
12 
87.35 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
11
28. 
50. 
Mr. Imran Afzal 
Cheema 
72.49 
B 
10 
82.49 
29. 
51. 
Mr. Sardar Ahmed 
Nawaz Sukhera 
80.91 
A 
12 
92.91 
30. 
52. 
Mrs. Yasmin Masood 
70.25 
A 
12 
82.25 
31. 
53. 
Mr. Saqib Aleem 
68.67 
B 
10 
76.67 
32. 
54. 
Mr. Muzaffar 
Mehmood 
70.80 
B 
10 
80.80 
33. 
55. 
Dr. Allah Bakhsh 
69.09 
B 
10 
79.09 
34. 
56. 
Mr. Muhammad Ijaz 
70.14 
B 
10 
80.14 
35. 
58. 
Mr. Mohammad 
Younus Dagha 
80.40 
A 
12 
92.40 
36. 
59. 
Mr. Naveed Kamran 
Bluch 
74.35 
A 
11 
85.35 
37. 
60. 
Mr. Shmail Ahmed 
76.98 
A 
11 
87.98 
38. 
61. 
Mr. Mohammed 
Misbah 
70.22 
B 
10 
80.22 
39. 
62. 
Mr. Mukhtar Hussain 
7..40 
A 
11 
84.40 
40. 
64. 
Mr. Aurangzeb Haque 
69.41 
B 
10 
79.41 
41. 
66. 
Mr. Muhammad Tariq 
Hayat, Capt. 
69.00 
B 
10 
79.00 
42. 
67. 
Dr. Syed Sohail Altaf 
73.80 
A 
12 
88.80 
43. 
68. 
Mr. Ghulam Qadir 
Khan 
69.25 
B 
10 
79.25 
44. 
69. 
Maj. Rizwan Ullah Beg 
72.11 
A 
11 
83.11 
45. 
70. 
Mr. Azam Suleman 
Khan 
78.68 
A 
12 
90.68 
46. 
71. 
Mr. Abid Ali Sq. Ldr. 
(R) 
67.65 
B 
10 
77.65 
47. 
72. 
Mr. Muhammad Ifran 
Elahi Sq. Ldr. (R) 
73.82 
A 
12 
85.82 
48. 
73. 
Mr. Amjad Ali Toor Sq. 
Ldr. (R) 
73.71 
A 
12 
85.71 
49. 
74. 
Mr. Qaiser Majeed 
Malik Maj. (R) 
72.50 
A 
12 
84.50 
50. 
75. 
Mr. Malik Tahir Sarfraz 
Awan Capt. (R) 
74.64 
A 
11 
85.64 
51. 
76. 
Mr. Atta Muhammad 
Khan Capt. (R) 
73.60 
B 
10 
83.60 
52. 
77. 
Mr. Fazeel Asghar 
Capt. (R) 
72.85 
B 
10 
82.85 
53. 
78. 
Mr. Amjad Shahid 
Afridi 
70.66 
B 
10 
80.66 
54. 
79. 
Mr. Shabbir Ahmed 
70.38 
A 
12 
82.38 
55. 
80. 
Mr. Yousaf Naseem 
Khokar 
78.76 
A 
12 
90.76 
56. 
81. 
 Mr. Allam ud Din 
Bullo 
72.05 
A 
11 
83.05 
57. 
82. 
Dr. Syed Hyder Ali 
7.71 
A 
11 
84.71 
58. 
84. 
Dr. Fida Muhammad 
Wazir 
70.45 
B 
10 
80.45 
59. 
85. 
Mr. Rizwan Malik 
74.42 
A 
11 
84.42 
60. 
86. 
Mr. Imran Ahmed 
72.84 
B 
10 
82.84 
61. 
87. 
Mr. Muhammad Ashraf 
7..82 
B 
10 
83.82 
62. 
88. 
Ms. Shaista Sohail 
77.20 
A 
12 
89.20 
63. 
89. 
Ms. Rabiya Adila 
Javeri 
77.49 
A 
12 
89.49 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
12
64. 
90. 
Mr. Muhammad Ilyas 
70.75 
B 
10 
80.75 
65. 
92. 
Mr. Mummtaz Ali Shah 
74.61 
A 
12 
86.61 
66. 
93. 
Mr. Jamil Ahmed 
70.51 
B 
10 
80.51 
67. 
94. 
Mr. Muhammad Asif 
73.36 
A 
12 
85.36 
68. 
95. 
Mr. Sheikh Zia ul Haq 
71.36 
A 
11 
82.36 
69. 
96. 
Mr. Muhammad Javed 
Hanif 
76.78 
A 
12 
88.78 
70. 
102. Mr. Rashid Ahmed 
67.55 
A 
18/24 
75.55 
71. 
103. Mr. Shoaib Mir Memon 
78.98 
A 
12 
90.98 
72. 
107. Mr. Jalal Sikandar 
Sultan 
77.28 
A 
11 
88.28 
73. 
118. Mr. Babar Hassan 
Bharwana 
68.56 
B 
10 
78.56 
74. 
119. Mr. Imran Nasir Khan 
67.99 
B 
10 
77.99 
75. 
112. Mr. Shfaqut ur 
Rehman Ranjha 
71.61 
B 
10 
81.61 
76. 
118. Mr. Tariq Feroze Khan 
66.92 
B 
12/24 
78.92 
77. 
119. Mr. Munir Ahmed 
60.70 
B 
15/24 
75.70 
78. 
125. Mr. Nasrullah Khan 
65.72 
B 
10/24 
75.72 
79. 
132. Dr. Fazlullah Pechuho 
77.30 
A 
11 
88.30 
80. 
133. Mr. Rizwan Ahmed 
69.82 
B 
10 
79.82 
 
 
11. 
 
It has been informed that against originally created 22 
vacancies of Grade 21 approved on 27th November, 2012, officers 
noted in the seniority list of PAS at serial Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 13, 
15, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38 & 41 were 
accommodated in the meeting held in February, 2013. 
 
It is to be noted that M/S Liaqat Ali Chughtai, Syed Hassan 
Mehmood, Imtiaz Hussain Rizvi and Ahsan Mehmood Mian whose cases 
were remanded by the learned Lahore High Court vide judgment noted 
above were not included in the above lists.   
12. 
 
It may be observed that the manner in which 88 vacancies 
were created are self explanatory; otherwise object of accommodating 
junior officers, who were at serial No.132 and 133, could not have 
been possible.  
13. 
 
A bird eye view of the above promotee officers suggest 
that mostly senior officers were recommended for deferment, reasons 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
13
of the same have already been noted above. In this manner, 80 out of 
133 officers were promoted on the recommendation of CSB.   
14. 
 
When the matter was taken up, Mrs. Seema Najeeb and 
Mr. Iqbal A. Bablani jointly filed an application for impleadment as 
party through Arshad Ali Ch. AOR, wherein it has been stated that 
applicants joined the Government Service on 22.10.1985 in the then 
DMG in BPS 17, and are now placed at Sr. 45 and 60 respectively in 
the seniority list of PAS Officers in BPS 20. It has been further stated 
in the application that PERs are due on 31st January of each year. As 
such, at the date of the meeting even PER for the year 2012 were 
available with Establishment Division for consideration. It was asserted 
that no person can be condemned for fault of others and it was for 
others to furnish PERs by 31st January each year. They argued that, 
the promotion of both the applicants was deferred for no fault on their 
part, as their PERs for the year 2012 were available with the 
Establishment Division at the time of both the CSB Meetings held on 
11.02.2013 and 27.02.2013.  
15. 
 
Another application for impleadment as party vide CMA No. 
4298/2013 was field on behalf of Hafiz Muhammad Abdul Hayee, an 
ex-officer of in Administrative Services serving in BPS 20,   
16. 
 
More than one concise statements, including CMA Nos. 
3358/2013, 4431/2013 and 4445/2013 on behalf of Establishment 
Division and CMA No. 3989/2013 on behalf of former secretary 
establishment, have been filed. 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
14
17. 
 
Mr. Taimur Azmat Osman, former Secretary Establishment 
filed his reply through CMA No.3989/2013; relevant paras therefrom 
are reproduced hereinbelow for reference:-  
“8. 
The CSB in its decisions is guided by the common wisdom 
and recommendations of the presenting Secretary, but option of 
the presenting Secretary may not be agreed by the CSB. The 
cases of all officers who were superseded in October, 2011, 
including Mr. Orya Maqbool Abbasi were presented by me before 
the Board. 
9. 
The case of the petitioner was deferred not on the basis 
of record, but on technicalities relating to the eligibility criteria 
for consideration for promotion. Under revised Promotion Policy 
2007 read with earlier Policy of 1985 “an officer superseded 
earlier shall be considered after earning PER for full one year. In 
case the officer has earned part PER for less than 12 months in 
a calendar year then a special report for the period of deficiency 
earned in next calendar year shall be taken into account to 
complete the requirement of 12 months for this purpose”. 
10. 
Mr. Orya Maqbool Abbasi had not earned a full PER of one 
year after supersession at the time when the matter was 
considered by the Board since PER up till December, 2011 were 
being considered. He had a shortfall of around 1½ month in his 
PER for the year 2011. However, a special report for completing 
mandatory one calendar year was received in the Establishment 
Division and presented before the Board. As such the 
requirements of the policy quoted above were completed. 
However, the Board in its collective wisdom decided not to 
consider the petitioner as well as number of officers of the PAS 
with similar requirements because, in their view point, they 
should be even handed with all other services as they had not 
considered cases of similar nature of other services. The Board 
thought that they should not give special dispensation to the 
PAS officers. On my insistence as presenting Secretary, the 
Board agreed to at least reserve equal number of vacancies for 
officers of similar category of PAS, including the petitioner, for 
consideration of their cases in the next CSB’s meeting.” 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
15
18. 
 
Similarly, another concise statement has been filed on 
behalf of Establishment Division through CMA No.3358/2013. Relevant 
paras therefrom are reproduced hereinbelow:- 
“4. 
One view was that the said Special Reports for the period 
of deficiency (part or whole 2012) be obtained and cases of 
officers concerned be submitted in next session of CSB’s 
meeting. The other view was that the proposed Special Reports 
pertaining to part/whole of 2012 should not be considered 
mainly for the reason that the entire proceedings had taken 
place on the basis of PER record upto 2011. The Board advised 
that requisite Special Reports in the said cases be obtained. 
Final decision for consideration OR otherwise to be taken in the 
next 
session. 
On 
27-02-2013, 
the 
CSB 
after 
detailed 
deliberation, in its collective wisdom decided not to consider the 
said Special Reports. The CSB, however, agreed to convene 
next regular meeting to consider promotion from BS-19 to BS-
20 
and 
from 
BS-20 
to 
BS-21 
in 
all 
the 
Ministries/Divisions/Department, shortly upon receipt of PER 
2012 of the officers on the panel. 
5. 
The name of Mr. Orya Maqbool Abbasi was placed before 
the Central Selection Board (CSB) held on 11th–14th & 27th 
February, 2013. The Board observed that the officer was earlier 
superseded on 23rd–24th September & 3rd October, 2011 for the 
reason that professionally not sound and unfit to hold higher 
responsibility. His score of PERs, TERs and marks awarded by 
Board was below the prescribed score of 75. The Board noted 
that said supersession was not supported by his PERs record 
particularly for the last five years which, inter-alia rated him as 
outstanding/very good with integrity as above board. He did not 
earn PER one full year (12 months) after his last supersession. 
His PER for the year 2011 was required to be earned subsequent 
to his supersession in terms of para 1 (a) (iv) of Revised 
Promotion Policy 2007. The Board decided to defer him. He is to 
be re-considered on the basis of PER of complete 12 months, as 
required under policy.” 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
16
19. 
 
Report on behalf of head of CSB/Chairman FPSC was filed 
through CMA No.3803/2013 stating therein that CSB after detailed 
discussion and taking into account all aspects decided to consider all 
promotion cases placed before it on the basis of PERs upto 2011. The 
petitioner was superseded in the previous meeting of the CSB held in 
October 2011. As per the Policy, the superseded officers are required 
to earn PERs for 12 months but the petitioner had not earned PERs for 
12 months, upto December 2011, therefore he along with all other 
officers falling in that category were deferred to the next meeting. First 
session of the CSB was held on 11th-14th February, 2013 to consider 
the cases of promotions, but some of the agenda items could not be 
considered due to pre-engagements of the Board members, shortage 
of time, non-readiness of agenda items, etc., therefore, second session 
of the CSB’s meeting was held on 27.02.2013. It was in this session 
that the Board in its collective wisdom decided not to consider special 
reports (for the period of deficiency, i.e. part or whole of 2012) for the 
reasons:- 
(i) 
18 officers of another category who were promoted to their 
present grade in year 2011 were also not recommended 
for promotion mainly for the reason that they lacked 
experience at the existing level. PER of 2012 in case of 
these officers was also not considered like all other officers 
for the sake of uniformity. 
(ii) 
In case PER for 2012 was considered, the officers 
superseded by CSB in its present with less quantification 
would also have claimed that they could have been 
promoted after considering PER for 2012 as the same may 
have improved their quantification. 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
17
20. 
 
It was further submitted that not only the petitioner but 
about 24 other officers of BPS 19 and 20 were also deferred for the 
same reasons, hence no discrimination was done nor any fundamental 
right was infringed.  The CSB unanimously took a policy decision and 
applied in all cases across the board.  
21. 
 
Yet another concise statement was filed on behalf of 
Establishment Division through CMA No.3642/2013 stating therein that 
the petitioner was superseded in CSB meeting held on 3.10.2011 but 
he did not assail his supersession in any court of law, therefore, the 
decision of CSB has attained finality.  
22. 
 
Another concise statement was filed on behalf of 
Establishment Division, in compliance of order dated 27.06.2013 
through CMA No. 4303/2013 providing complete record of promotion 
of officers from Grade 20 to 21; statement showing number of cadre 
posts available in the year 2012 and 2013; seniority list of officers who 
were promoted and those who were not considered along with 
reasons. It was further asserted that Secretary Establishment Division 
on his own is not empowered to increase the strength of cadre posts of 
PAS. It was also submitted that no induction of any officer from any 
other cadre has been made in the PAS in BPS 21, as a consequence of 
CSB February, 2013.  
23. 
 
CMA 4454/2013 has been filed by Shabbir Ahmad, 
respondent No. 56, stating therein that Establishment Division moved 
a summary in June, 2011 seeking approval of 22 vacancies which was 
approved by the Prime Minister, however, CSB-I could not meet due to 
the restraining order of the Islamabad High Court. In June, 2012 in 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
18
response to another summary, the Prime Minister approved 37 
vacancies but due to the restraining order issued by the Islamabad 
High Court, CSB could not be convened.  Thereafter, CSB was finally 
held on 11th–14th February, 2013 in which 56 candidates were 
promoted including the respondent. According to the respondent, the 
delay of 16 months was caused due to restraining order of Islamabad 
High Court.  
24. 
 
In the concise statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 
23, 47, 49, 53, 57, 74 and 75 through CMA No. 4453/2013, it was 
asserted that the petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution is 
not maintainable as in individual grievance relatable to the terms and 
conditions of the services and by the specific bar contained in Article 
212(3) of the Constitution. The guidelines for the CSB are enunciated 
in the Revised Promotion Policy, 2007 read with earlier Policy of 1985 
on the same subject. The criteria for promotion to BPS 21 asked for by 
the petitioner, in their opinion, do not fall within the criteria laid down 
in the said policy.  
25. 
  
It was further submitted that previously ex-cadre posts 
were included in the vacancy positions on a notional basis and officers 
were posted subsequent to promotion. For the sake of transparency, 
this time around existing vacancies were taken into account before the 
meeting of CSB after approval of the Prime Minister. They also argued 
that no aggrieved person has approached the Court in order to 
challenge the posting made against ex-cadre posts while 79 out of 80 
officers promoted to BPS 21 have actualized their promotion since 
March, 2013. In addition to it, it was stated that the exact number of 
vacancies was determined and that matter was cleared for holding 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
19
meeting of CSB after vacation of stay order by the Islamabad High 
Court in January, 2013. The last meeting of the Board was then held in 
February 2013 and vacancies of BPS 21 which accrued thereafter were 
also taken into account. 
26. 
 
Dr. Fazlullah Pechuho, Respondent No. 82, has filed 
concise statement through CMA 4462/2013 mentioning therein that as 
the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 
184(3) for his personal grievance, therefore, no question of public 
importance is involved; hence, petition is liable to be dismissed. 
Besides this the petition is barred under Article 212(2) of the 
Constitution as the petitioner intends to enforce terms and conditions 
of his service. Moreover, the petitioner has not preferred departmental 
appeal.  
27. 
 
In the joint concise statement, respondents No.28, 43, 52, 
53, 54 and 58 stated that promotions to higher post in terms of 
Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 [CSA, 1973] are reserved 
under the rules for departmental promotion in the service or cadre to 
which a civil servant belongs, and it, inter alia, provides for filling of 
posts of Additional Secretary in a prescribed way. They also raised the 
question with regard to filing of petition under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution.  
28. 
 
Later on, in the concise statement filed on behalf of 
respondents No.19, 38, 61, 73 and 81 it was stated that the petitioner 
was deferred for promotion from BPS 20 to 21 on account of deficiency 
in PERs along with others and that he would be considered for 
promotion in the next CSB meeting subject to fulfillment of deficiency 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
20
pointed out earlier by the CSB. It was further stated that deferment is 
not a punishment and is not also a question of law or public 
importance. Reliance in this behalf was placed on the case of Watan 
Party v. Chief Executive of Pakistan (PLD 2003 SC 74) relied upon in 
the case of All Pakistan Newspapers Society v. Federation of. 
Pakistan (PLD 2004 SC 600). It was argued that interference in the 
collective wisdom of the CSB is not warranted and the Court had not 
entertained such petitions wherein proceedings of CSB were called in 
question. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Dr. Mir Alam Jan 
v. Dr. Muhammad Shehzad (2008 SCMR 960) and Saleem Ullah Khan 
v. Shahid Hamid (2011 SCMR 788). Moreover, the matter relates to 
the terms and conditions of service which exclusively falls within the 
jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the 
Constitution. Also, this petition is barred on the basis of the dictum laid 
down in the cases of I.A. Sherwani v. Government of Pakistan (1991 
SCMR 1041) and Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab 
(1998 SCMR 2280). It was argued that a panel of 134 PAS officers of 
BPS 20 was placed before the Board for consideration who on the basis 
of updated record, integrity and performance of the officers known to 
the Board members as well as pen pictures contained in the PERs and 
training evaluation reports considered the officers on the panel in the 
order of seniority. Minimum threshold of marks for promotion to BPS 
21 was 75 marks, while applicants had secured the marks mentioned 
against their names:- 
Sr. No 
Name 
Marks 
Respondent 
No. 
 
19 
Mr. Mohsin Haqqani 
82.83 
19 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
21
36 
Mr. Naveed Kamran Baloch 
85.35 
38 
59 
Mr. Rizwan Malik 
85.42 
61 
71 
Mr. Shoaib Mirza Memon 
90.98 
73 
79 
Mr. Rizwan Ahmed  
79.82 
81 
  
29. 
  
Before dilating upon the merits of the case it is considered 
appropriate to deal with the objections of maintainability of instant 
petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. It is to be noted that 
an individual is empowered to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, if it 
is established that a question of public importance with reference to 
the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights is involved. The petitioner 
has not invoked the jurisdiction of this Court to seek relief individually 
as it is evident from the contents of the prayer clause, reproduced 
hereinabove and also arguments advanced by him, relating to 
enforcement of fundamental rights of the Civil Servants of BPS-21 who 
have to involve themselves in important policy making and extensive 
administrative jurisdictions, having possessed proven analytical 
competence, breadth of vision, emotional maturity and such other 
qualities as determined the potential for successfully holding posts in 
top management for achieving the goal for the welfare of the general 
public, which also deals with their fundamental rights under Articles 9 
and 25 etc. of the Constitution. Reference may be made to Tariq Aziz-
ud-Din’s case (2010 SCMR 1301). Relevant paras therefrom are 
reproduced hereinbelow:- 
30. 
Learned counsel for the Federation and Attorney 
General for Pakistan were of the opinion that as few 
persons have approached this court by sending Misc. 
applications which have been treated petition under 
Article 184(3) of the Constitution whereas majority of 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
22
the officers have accepted the decision, therefore, for 
this reason petitions may be dismissed directing the 
aggrieved party to avail legal remedy permissible under 
the law, instead of invoking constitutional jurisdiction of 
this 
Court. 
Reliance 
was 
placed 
on 
All 
Pakistan 
Newspapers Society and others v. Federation of Pakistan 
and others PLD 2004 SC 600. We are not impressed with 
this argument; as well, for the judgment cited by the 
learned counsel for the Federation is not relevant to the 
issue involved because the exercise of discretion 
contrary to settled principles has not only affected the 
left out officers but has left a far-reaching adverse effect 
upon the structure of civil servants---- be in the 
employment 
of 
the 
Federal 
or 
the 
Provincial 
Governments, 
autonomous 
and 
semi-autonomous 
bodies, etc. --- and if the decision of the competent 
authority under challenge is not examined keeping in 
view the Constitutional provisions and the efficient 
officers who have served honestly during their service 
career, would have no guarantee of their future service 
prospects. Consequently, such actions are also likely to 
affect the good governance as well as framing of policies 
in the welfare of the public and the State. Therefore, to 
assure the public at large, more particularly the civil 
servants in this case that their fundamental rights will be 
protected, 
this 
Court 
is 
constrained 
to 
exercise 
jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. “ 
30. 
  
Second objection, which has been raised by Mr. Rashid A. 
Rizvi, learned counsel is that in view of bar of Article 212 of the 
Constitution, instant petition is not competent. In this behalf reference 
may be made to section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973 
[FSTA, 1973], which has no application on the fitness of a person to 
hold a particular post. As CSB in view of promotion policy has deferred 
to a good number of BPS-20 officers of PAS/APUG, allegedly for 
subjective reasons, therefore, in view of law laid down in I.A. 
Sherwani’s case (ibid), it is held that objection has no substance.  
31. 
  
Now it is to be noted that BPS-21 position is a selection 
post and is to be dealt with under section 9 of the CSA, 1973, which 
reads thus:- 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
23
“9. Promotion.- (1) A civil servant possessing such 
minimum qualifications as may be prescribed shall be 
eligible for promotion to a higher post for the time being 
reserved under the rules for departmental promotion in the 
service or cadre to which he belongs: 
 
Provided that the posts of - 
(a) 
Additional Secretary and Senior Joint Secretary 
may, in the public interest, be filled by 
promotion from amongst officers of regularly 
constituted Occupational Groups and services 
holding, on regular basis, posts in Basic Pay 
Scale 20; and 
(b) 
………… 
(2) 
A post referred to in sub-section (1) may either be a 
selection post or a non-selection post to which promotions 
shall be made as may be prescribed- 
(a) 
in the case of a selection post, on the basis of 
selection on merit; and 
(b) 
in the case of a non-selection post, on the 
basis of seniority-cum-fitness. 
(3) 
Promotion to posts in basic pay scales 20 and 21 and 
equivalent shall be made on the recommendations of a 
Selection Board which shall be headed by the Chairman, 
Federal Public Service Commission.” 
32. 
  
There is no cavil with the proposition that BPS-21 post has 
to be filled on merits on the recommendations of Selection Board. In 
presence of above provision of law to evolve a transparent procedure 
for promotion and making selection to the pos of BPS-21, the 
competent authority in exercise of powers under section 9 (2)(a) of 
the CSA, 1973 read with rule 7, 7A and 8 of the Civil Servants 
(Appointments, Promotions and Transfers) Rules, 1973 [CS(AP&T)R, 
1973], issued following revised guidelines (Policy of Promotion in 
2007):- 
“5. 
Posts carrying basic pay scale 21 fall in senior 
management involving important policy-making or extensive 
administrative jurisdictions. In addition to the circulation value 
and variety of experience the incumbents must possess proven 
analytical competence, breadth of vision, emotional maturity 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
24
and such other qualities as determine the potential for 
successfully holding posts in top management. This potential 
cannot be judged by mathematical formula. The Selection Board 
will have to apply its collective wisdom to determine the same. 
A civil servant must fulfill the following conditions for promotion 
to senior management post:- 
 
(a) 
Qualifying Service:  possess 22 years service as an 
officer subject to the provisions contained in 
Establishment Division’s O.M. No.1/9/80-R-II (A),  
dated 2-6-1983 (Sl. No. 157). 
 
(b) 
Eligibility Threshold: attain a minimum score of 75* 
marks in CRs in accordance with the formula given 
in the Addendum. 
 
(c) 
Qualifications: as are prescribed by relevant 
recruitment rules. 
 
(d) 
Relevance 
of 
Experience: 
possess 
experience 
relevant to the functions of the post being filled by 
promotion. 
 
(e) 
“Quality and Output of Work” and “Integrity”: 
marks calculated in accordance with the formula in 
the Addendum shall be a crucial factor in 
determining the comparative merit of an officer. 
 
(f) 
“Variety of Experience: the Selection Board should 
give careful consideration to the nature of duties, 
duration and location of posts previously held by 
the officer. At this level, a proper assessment 
under the criterion may require some distinction 
between hard or taxing assignments (on account of 
workload or its complexity) viz-a-viz relatively 
routine, duties particularly in the secretariat. 
Depending on the posts to the filled, an officer 
possessing well-rounded experience with adequate 
exposure to difficult assignments should normally 
be preferred. 
 
(g) 
Training: should have successfully completed a 
regular course at the Pakistan Administrative Staff 
College/National 
Defence 
*College. 
This 
requirement will be waived for officers who: 
(i) 
have served as head of a training institution 
for at least one year; or  
(ii) 
have served on the directing staff  of a 
training institution for at least two years; or  
(iii) 
have exceeded the age of 56 years. 
 
(h) 
Top Management Potential: since officers promoted 
to this level may be called upon to hold 
independent charge of a Ministry/Division or to 
head a major corporation, the Board should satisfy 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
25
itself about the officer’s maturity, balance and 
ability to assume such top management positions 
even at short notice.” 
33. 
  
It may not be out of place to observe that policy of 
promotion (revised in 2007) enjoys the force of law, therefore, has to 
be adhered to strictly. Reference in this behalf may be made to the 
case of Fazali Rehmani v. Chief Minister NWFP (PLD 2008 SC 769).  
34. 
  
Petitioner 
has 
emphasized 
that 
CSB 
arbitrarily 
recommended to the candidates for promotion not fit for promotion for 
extraneous conditions qua it had also happened in the cases of 
superseded or deferred officers, therefore, it is necessary to amend 
promotion policy incorporating provision to hold enquiry about their life 
style, expenses on children’s education, expenses on children 
marriages, foreign tours, etc. and political affiliations, enable CSB to 
give its findings objectively instead of denying their rights of 
promotion on subjective conditions.  
35. 
  
It is to be noted that above noted policy was promulgated 
as back as in the year of 2007. Findings so recorded by CSB during 
promotion of candidates by CSB had been subject matter of judicial 
review by Courts as recently in the Writ Petition No. 3483/2011 
decided by Islamabad High Court findings of CSB have been declared 
unlawful and contrary to the guidelines. Similarly in Liaqat Ali 
Chughtai’s case (supra) the learned High Court in respect of selection 
process carried out by CSB in its meeting on 23rd -24th September, 
2011 observed as follows:- 
“38. For the above reasons, the selection process carried 
out by CSB in its meeting held on 23rd, 24th September, 
and 3rd October, 2011 is hereby declared unconstitutional 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
26
and illegal and is therefore set aside. CSB is directed to 
formula a well thought out Objective Criteria in accordance 
with the Revised Promotion Policy (as discussed above) 
and consider the cases of the petitioners and private 
respondents afresh.”   
36. 
  
As it has been pointed out that promotion from BS-20 to 
BS-21 is merit base selection, while taking into consideration eligibility 
criteria to assess the fitness and suitability of the officers who shall be 
involved 
in 
important 
policy 
making 
decisions 
for 
extensive 
administrative jurisdiction as per the guidelines issued in Promotion 
Policy of 2007; therefore, Establishment or concerned department 
remains under legal obligation to assist CSB in a transparent and fair 
manner to avoid non-transparent selection of such like officers. It is 
quite possible to do so in view of statutory provision of law dealing 
with the case of promotion through process of selection under sub-
sections (2)(a) and (3) of section 9 of the CSA, 1973 read with rules 
7-A and 8 of the CS(AP&T)R, 1973, on the recommendations of the 
Central Selection Board along with revised Promotion Policy of 2007, 
which have been reproduced hereinabove.  
37. 
  
The conditions for promotion to senior management post, 
noted above, are required to be fulfilled strictly while examining the 
case of each candidate. Needless to observe that promotion is not a 
right, but a civil servant who is fully qualified for promotion has a right 
to claim that his case must be considered for promotion strictly 
following the eligibility criteria laid down by the Government, more 
particularly, in view of the provisions of section 4 of the FSTA, 1973, 
whereby a civil servant is debarred to avail remedy under Article 
212(3) of the Constitution, as it has been laid down in the case of 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
27
Government of Punjab, through Secretary Health Department v. Dr. 
Aman-ul Haq (2000 SCMR 1805). 
38. 
  
Unfortunately, in the instant case, which has been filed 
under Article 184(3) of the Constitution and maintainability of the 
same has already been decided supra, neither the Secretary 
Establishment nor CSB strictly adhered to the provisions of section 9 of 
the CSA, 1973 and rules 7-A and 8 of the CS(AP&T)R, 1973 as well as 
revised Promotion Policy of 2007, and without causing prejudice to the 
case of any of the individual, an extensive exercise was undertaken to 
ensure promotion of the officers who were junior as per seniority list 
by increasing the number of available vacancies in which non-cadre 
posts were also added. Initially, approval of the Prime Minister was 
obtained for 22 vacancies on 27.011.2013 and perhaps on having seen 
that target of promoting junior officers could not be achieved, if CSB is 
allowed to make the recommendations against only these vacancies, 
second summary was moved on 09.01.2013 for the approval of the 
Prime Minister for adding 37 vacancies, which was approved on 
12.01.2013. Again, third summary was moved on 30.01.2013, wherein 
by making reference to 22+56 vacancies, 10 more vacancies for other 
groups/service were got approved. A perusal of the break up of 56 
vacancies, approved on 1.2.2013, which has been reproduced 
hereinabove, abundantly makes it clear that the purpose was nothing 
except to achieve the object noted hereinabove, otherwise for 
promotion of officers of PAS there was no necessity to add vacancies 
which were outside the cadre of PAS or the Secretariat group like 
Wafaqi Mohtasib, FBR, PF, TCP, NAB, PMDC, etc. Not only this, the 
vacancies which were likely to be vacated in future on the retirement 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
28
of officers of grade 21 and 22, belonging to PAS on 30.04.2013, etc., 
were included knowing well that the organizations named hereinbefore 
had their own service structure and promotion to the next higher scale 
has to be carried out amongst their ranks. In this context, it has been 
informed that previously ex-cadre posts used to be included in the 
vacancy positions on a notional basis and officers were posted 
subsequent to promotion, and the stand taken by the Establishment 
Division is that for the sake of transparency this time overall existing 
vacancies were taken into account, before the meeting of CSB after 
approval of the Prime Minister. It is interesting to note that 10 
vacancies were identified to be added in the total available positions of 
BS-21 for promotion of Secretariat Group or other services but 
admittedly in a highly unauthorized manner no promotion of any 
officer except PAS officers was made as a consequence of deliberations 
of CSB meeting held on 11th to 14th and 27th February, 2013. In view 
of such situation there is hardly any necessity to repeat about the 
object and purpose of promoting the officers junior in the seniority list 
upto serial No.133, at the same time recommending deferment of 49 
PAS 
officers 
including 
the 
petitioners, 
Orya 
Maqbool 
Abbasi, 
Muhammad Rashid, Muhammad Rizwan Taqi, Mian Muhammad 
Zulqurnain, Manzar Hayat, Iftikhar Hussain, etc., for arbitrary reasons. 
To substantiate this point, reference may be made to various 
notifications placed on record of same date i.e. 11.03.2013 as in some 
of the notifications despite promotion most of the officers were allowed 
to actualize their promotion with the same vacancy of BS-20, which 
they were already occupying. It is true that the officers who were not 
qualifying eligibility criteria for promotion, their cases could be 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
29
deferred but not on the basis of discriminatory reasons, particularly, 
where such elements are visible on record. In this behalf reference 
may be made to CMA No.3358/2013 wherein the Board observed that 
the officer (Orya Maqbool Abbasi) earlier superseded on 23rd, 24th 
September & 3rd October, 2011 for the reason that he is professionally 
not sound and unfit to hold higher responsibility. It was further 
observed that marks awarded by Board were below the prescribed 
score of 75. However, in the next meeting i.e. 11th – 14th and 27th 
February, 2013 the Board noted that said supersession was not 
supported by his PERs record particularly for the last five years which, 
inter alia, rated him as outstanding/very good, with integrity as above 
board. Luckily, identical observations have been made in respect of 
Muhammad Rashid and others whose names have been noted 
hereinabove. Not only this, the petitioner had secured a special report 
for the year 2012 as per the admission of Secretary Establishment, as 
such requirements of the policy quoted above were fulfilled. This may 
also be borne in mind that vide Office Memorandum No.F.1/1/2012-
CP-2 dated 11.01.2013 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet 
Secretariat, Establishment Division, following proviso was inserted in 
Para-2 of Revised Promotion Policy, 2007:- 
“Provided further that if an officer has not earned 
Performance Evaluation Report of complete one year and 
has earned only part Performance Evaluation Report in a 
calendar year for no fault of his own (i.e. he/she remained 
OSD 
without 
any 
assignment, 
remained 
on 
mandatory/non-mandatory 
training 
and 
awaiting 
posting/actualization of promotion) then his/her special 
report for the period of deficiency earned in next calendar 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
30
year shall be taken into account to complete the 12 – 
months requirement for the purpose.” 
39. 
  
It is beyond our comprehension that CSB while deferring 
the cases of others as well (noted hereinabove) observed that as per 
the policy the superseded officers are required to earn PERs for 12 
months but the petitioner had not earned PERs for 12 months upto 
December, 2011, therefore, he along with all other officers, falling in 
that category, were deferred to the next meeting. First sessions of CSB 
was held on 11th – 14th February, 2013 to consider the cases of the 
promotion but some of the agenda items could not be considered due 
to pre-engagements of the Board members, shortage of time, non-
readiness of agenda items, etc., therefore, second session of the CSB’s 
meeting was held on 27.02.2013. In this session, the Board in its 
collective wisdom decided not to consider special reports (for the 
period of deficiency, i.e. part or whole of 2012). Least we can observe 
that recommendations for the deferment of the senior management 
officers was nothing but unfairness with them. 
40. 
  
The case of senior management officers was not decided 
following the principle of due process of law being one of their 
fundamental rights under Article 10A of the Constitution, which 
provides that for the determination of his civil rights and obligations or 
in any criminal charge against him a person shall be entitled to a fair 
trial and due process, as it has been held in the case of Babar Hussain 
Shah v. Mujeeb Ahmed Khan (2012 SCMR 1235) as under: - 
“11. … … Although from the very inception the 
concept of fair trial and due process has always been 
the golden principles of administration of justice but 
after incorporation of Article 10-A in the Constitution 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
31
of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 vide 18th 
Amendment, it has become more important that due 
process should be adopted for conducting a fair trial 
and order passed in violation of due process may be 
considered to be void.”  
 
The same principle has been highlighted in the case of President 
Balochistan High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (2012 
SCMR 1958), wherein it has been held that the due process of law was 
not one of the fundamental right but after the 18th Constitutional 
Amendment, it was made part of Chapter 1, Part II of the Constitution 
as one of the fundamental rights. It provides that for the 
determination of his civil rights and obligations or in any criminal 
charge against him a person shall be entitled to a fair trial and due 
process. Thus, it is the duty of the State to enforce fundamental rights 
of citizen and protect their life, liberty and property and anyone of 
them if charged for any offence, he has to be dealt with in accordance 
with law by providing fair trial and due process. 
41. 
  
The CSB, being semi judicial forum, has been authorized to 
examine the cases of the officers justly and fairly. In the instant case, 
as it is evident from the available record, a good number of officers 
were deferred on 23rd-24th September and 3rd October, 2011 contrary 
to the record, as it is admitted by the Secretary, Establishment, for 
different reasons including that they were professionally not sound and 
unfit to hold higher responsibility, but when again for the second time 
their cases were put up the same Board noted that said supersession 
was not supported by their PERs record, particularly for the last five 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
32
years, which, inter alia, rated them as outstanding/very good, with 
integrity as above board.  
42. 
  
We have posed a question to ourselves as to whether on 
account of earlier unfounded, illegal and arbitrary decisions by the 
CSB, the officers should be allowed to continue to suffer despite 
realization of CSB that its earlier findings were not supported with the 
record; the answer to it is that illegal and arbitrary decisions militates 
against the rule of law, thus, calls for interference by the Court in 
exercise of its power of judicial review. In addition to it, emphasis has 
been laid by the GoP through its Secretary Establishment that the 
cases for promotion of the petitioner and so many others, were not 
rejected for any technical reasons but it is in the collective wisdom of 
CSB not to consider the petitioner and all the officers in PAS with 
similar requirements, because in their viewpoint they should be even 
handed with all other services as it had not considered cases of similar 
nature of other services. This Court in the case of Federation of 
Pakistan through Secretary Establishment vs. Liaqat Ali and Tauqir 
Ahmad Faiq (Civil Petition Nos. 836 and 837 of 2006) held that 
decision with regard to promotion of the officers cannot be left on the 
discretion of the members of the Board; there must be some criteria to 
judge the performance of a candidate because promotion was denied 
to the officer on ground that he does not fulfill the criteria.   
43. 
 
As it has been discussed hereinabove the petitioner and 
others were subjected to arbitrariness by the CSB while considering 
their cases in the months of September and October, 2011 and in the 
meetings of CSB held twice in the month of February, 2013, it did not 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
33
support to its adverse decision against the petitioner and others and 
on having seen their record concluded that PERs are fully supporting 
them and in view of the subject reports in their favour, they are 
eligible to be considered for promotion. However, it failed to take into 
consideration such reports for the reasons not tenable in law and their 
such findings were clear violation and departure from the promotion 
policy because once the officers have fulfilled the criteria, their cases 
have to be considered, to asses the fitness and suitability to share 
higher responsibility, mostly based on objective criteria, instead of 
denying promotion to them for the subjective consideration, as exactly 
has happened in this case in view of the background which has been 
noted hereinabove, he should have been reconsidered for promotion. 
Thus, such findings, which are whimsical, in violation of the policy and 
are also based on subjective consideration, cannot be endorsed in the 
public interest as well as for the good governance, relating to the 
welfare of the citizens. The officers, if have not been considered for 
promotion on merit against a selection post from BS-20 to 21, it would 
have direct impact on good governance, which is necessary to provide 
for smooth running of affairs in the country including protecting the 
rights of citizens under Articles 3 and 9 of the Constitution.  
44. 
 
It is most important to note that during the hearing of the 
case, learned Additional Attorney General conveyed that the 
Government had decided to review the promotion of PAS officers and 
in this behalf following statement was filed:- 
“STATEMENT ON BEHAFL OF SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT 
DIVISION 
Respectfully Sheweth 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
34
During the hearing of Constitution petition No.22/2013 
titled Orya Maqbool Abbasi vs Federation of Pakistan today in 
the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Additional 
Attorney General conveyed to the apex Court that it was 
decided by the Federal Government to review the promotion of 
PAS officers recommended in the second session of the CSB 
held on 27.02.2013. The Honourable Court directed that 
statement in writing maybe given by Establishment Secretary.  
2. 
Establishment Secretary is traveling to Lahore via 
motorway in connection with an official engagement in NSPP. He 
has accorded verbal approval on phone to file the statement on 
his behalf.  
3. 
Establishment Division hereby confirms that it would 
review promotion of 24 officers (at serial No.57 to 80) already 
recommended by CSB, through another CSB meeting to be 
convened, shortly. 
4. 
Promotion of 56 officers recommended in the first session 
of CSB, 2013 maybe allowed to continue in BS-21. 
 
(SYED ALI SHAHBAZ KIRMANI) 
Section Officer (Legal) 
Establishment Division 
Islamabad” 
 
45. 
  
After considering the above statement, we observe that 
above admission is sufficient to support his contention, which has been 
raised by the petitioner and so many other senior management 
officers, who joined the proceedings by submitting miscellaneous 
applications, in pursuance whereof they have also highlighted their 
grievances, which are somehow identical in nature. Therefore, it is 
considered appropriate to examine the above statement in its real 
perspective as it is not an individual case of few officers for promotion 
of grade 20 or 21 but relates to good governance, rights of general 
public, enforcement of fundamental rights as well as application of 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
35
statutory provision of law, followed by rules and guidelines of 
promotion noted hereinabove. At the same time it is also to be seen 
that Lahore High Court in the case of Liaqat Ali Chugtai v. Federation 
of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 413) had remanded the case. It seems that 
during the CSB 2nd meeting in the month of February, their cases were 
not considered and same is the position in respect of the cases of civil 
servants, which were decided by Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition 
No.3483/2011. 
46. 
  
Now turning towards the pivotal role of officers relating to 
the management in Government of Pakistan, notwithstanding whether 
they belong to PAS or Secretariat Group or any other group, fact 
remains that individuals of such cadre play a decisive role in shaping 
the destiny of the nation. Reference in this behalf to highlight their 
importance can conveniently be made to the following passage from 
the speech of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah delivered in April, 
1948, to the civil officers in Peshawar:- 
“ 
… The reason why I am meeting you is that I wanted 
to say a few words to you who are occupying very 
important positions in the administration of this province. 
The first thing that I want to tell you is that you should 
never be influenced by any political pressure, by any 
political party or any individual politician. If you want to 
raise the prestige and greatness of Pakistan you must not 
fall victim to any pressure but do your duty as servants of 
the people and the state, fearlessly and honestly. 
  
The services are the backbone of the state. Governments 
are formed. Governments are defeated. Prime Ministers 
come and go, ministers come and go, but you stay on. 
Therefore, there is a very great responsibility placed on 
your shoulders. You should have no hand in supporting 
this political party or that political party, this political 
leader or that political leader. This is not your business.  
 
Whichever government is formed according to the 
constitution, and who ever happens to be the prime 
minister or minister, coming into power in the ordinary 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
36
course, your duty is only to serve that government loyally 
and morally but, at the same time, fearlessly, maintaining 
your high reputation, your prestige, your honour and the 
integrity 
of 
your 
service. 
If 
you 
start 
with 
that 
determination, you will make a great contribution to the 
building up of Pakistan of our conceptions and our dream-a 
glorious state and one of the greatest nations in the 
world.  
 
While impressing this upon you, I wish also to take the 
opportunity of impressing upon our leaders and politicians 
in the same way, that if they ever try to interfere with you 
and bring political pressure to bear upon you, which leads 
to nothing but corruption, bribery and nepotism-which is a 
horrible disease and for which not only your province but 
others too are suffering-if they try to interfere with you in 
this way, I say they are doing nothing but disservice to 
Pakistan.  
 
I hope that each of you will understand his own sphere of 
duty and responsibility and act with others harmoniously in 
complete cooperation, keeping in mind that each has to do 
his duty within the sphere to which he belongs, if on your 
part start with that determination and enthusiasm – and I 
hope the other side will also realize what a terrible evil 
they are raising up and how it demoralizes the services to 
try and influence this department or that departments, this 
office or that officer-and if you stick to your determination 
you will have done a great service to your nation. Putting 
pressure on service people is, I know, a very common fault 
of politicians and those with influence in political parties, 
but I hope you will now, from today, resolve and 
determine to act according to the humble advice I am 
giving you. …”  
Importance of the role of the civil servants could not be highlighted in 
better manner except in the words of founding father of this country 
noted hereinabove.  
47. 
 
It is critically to be noted that unlike the provisions of the 
earlier Constitutions of 1956 and 1962, no protection is provided to 
the civil servants in the Constitution of 1973, as a result whereof, this 
important section of executive, which is responsible to make the 
policies for country are not feeling as strong as it should have been 
with the constitutional protection to their services. Therefore, by 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
37
enforcing existing laws, rules and regulations full protection is required 
to be provided to them so honest and dedicated members of civil 
service may discharge their function without any fear or favour 
enabling them not to show eagerness to obey unlawful and uncalled 
for demands of their bosses, instead of following the principle of 
honesty and transparency in the performance of their duties. In this 
behalf reference readily may be made to the case of Tariq Aziz-ud-
Din (2010 SCMR 1301). In the said case, all the promotions of grade-
22 officers in exercise of judicial powers, were reversed and the 
Government was asked to frame policy/rules for promotion from grade 
21 to 22, to ensure that such appointments must be made on merit, 
according to the criteria laid down by the law and the rules. Recently, 
in another judgment in the case of Syed Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi v. 
Federation of Pakistan commonly known as Ms. Anita Turab case (PLD 
2013 S.C. 195), this Court, once again proceeded to interpret the 
relevant provisions of law, particularly relating to the tenure of the 
officers and immature transfers/postings. In this context it is to be 
noted that firstly, the competent authority i.e. Government as well as 
CSB had to adhere strictly to the law and the rules as well as the 
instructions on the subject. If any action is taken against any of the 
officers denying his case for promotion, such action would be unlawful 
and would have no leg to stand. In addition to it, two clauses i.e. (e) 
and (f) of item 5 of Promotion Policy, noted hereinabove, are very 
important. While examining clauses (e), (f) and (h) relating to quality 
and output of work, variety of experience and top management 
potential, stringent provisions have to be incorporated to make such 
promotion policy to provide objective criteria for promotion. The 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
38
petitioner has prayed that the criteria of eligibility on merits, credibility 
of civil servants could be adjudged in view of the contentions, which he 
has made part of the petition. We do agree with his prayer and 
observe that it would be great achievement if it is added in the policy 
to hold an inquiry of the civil servant while sending his case for 
promotion and also examine his family assets at the time when he 
joined the service including lifestyle, expense on children education, 
expenses on children marriage, foreign tours as well as to ascertain 
the political affiliation of such a candidate to make the bureaucracy 
free from political affiliation as it has been observed in his speech by 
the Quaid-e-Azam.  
48. 
 
A very dangerous trend has been set amongst the civil 
servants that instead of claiming their recruitment, promotion, etc., on 
merit, they prefer to seek the blessings from the outside of their 
service hierarchy, which ultimately makes obligatory upon them to 
oblige the persons who favoured them in the promotion to the higher 
rank. Therefore, on adding this clause in the policy, the government 
would be able to get service of quite independent persons with 
knowledge, ability and free from any pressure, for the purpose of 
assisting the executive Government to discharge its function as well as 
to maintain the rule of law.  
49. 
 
As we noted that the government itself has shown 
inclination to reconsider the cases for promotion from grade 20 to 21, 
in view of the statement and discussion made hereinabove, but we are 
of the opinion that as the decision of CSB and the manner in which 88 
positions of BS-21 were created, has not found in consonance with the 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
39
statutory provision of law, rules and the guidelines for promotion, thus 
action of CSB in deferring 49 officers for one or the other reason has 
rendered whole process of promotion void. Therefore, we are of the 
opinion that instead of reconsidering the cases of officers from Sr. 
No.57 to 80 out of seniority list of PAS officers it would be in all 
fairness to undertake exercise by CSB as a whole for promotion from 
BS-20 to 21 including candidates of PAS and for other services i.e. 
Secretariat group etc.  
50. 
 
Thus, it is held as under:- 
(i) 
The petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution 
has been held to be maintainable and is allowed. 
(ii) 
The promotion from BS-20 to 21 against available 
vacancies has to be made in accordance with 
reserved quota for the promotion of different groups 
i.e. PAS, Secretariat etc., as a result whereof instead 
of cancelling the promotion of the officers from Sr. 
No.57 to 80 all cases of promotion against 88 
vacancies of BS-21 is hereby cancelled being void 
and 
unlawful 
and 
fresh 
exercise 
has 
to 
be 
undertaken along with the cases of the civil servants 
which have been remanded by the Lahore High Court 
in Liaqat Ali Chugtai’s case (PLD 2013 Lahore 413) 
and the cases decided Islamabd High Court in W.P. 
No. 
3483/2011. 
Consequently, 
notification 
of 
promotion of all the officers issued in pursuance of 
the recommendations of CSB held on 11th-14th 
February and 27th February, 2013 are hereby set 
aside with direction to the competent authority to 
undertake the process of the promotion to all of 
them as observed hereinabove strictly in accordance 
with law on merits under Section 9 of the Civil 
Const.P.22/13 etc. 
40
Servants Act, 1973, read with rules 7, 7A and 8 of 
the Civil Servants (Appointments, Promotions and 
Transfers) Rules, 1973 as well as Promotion Policy as 
amended upto date, vide O.M. dated 13.1.2013. 
(iii) 
The Government shall also undertake exercise to 
outline the objective criteria for promotion to make 
the civil servant an honest officer and free from 
political pressure as has been noted hereinabove.  
Petition stands disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  
Chief Justice 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Announced on 3rd October, 2013 at Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
Approved For Reporting