IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J. 
MR. JUSTICE CH. IJAZ AHMED 
MR. JUSTICE GHULAM RABBANI 
 
HUMAN RIGHTS CASES NO.8340, 9504-G, 13936-G, 
13635-P & 14306-G TO 14309-G OF 2009. 
 
(Applications by Tariq Aziz-ud-Din & others)  
 
Tariq Aziz ud Din:  
 
Applicant in HRC 8340/09 
Nazir Ahmed Chaudhry: 
 
Applicant in HRC 9504-G/09 
Farkhanda Wasim Afzal: 
 
Applicant in HRC 13635-P/09 
Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki 
Applicant in HRC 13936-G/09 
Shahnaz S. Hamid:  
 
Applicant in HRC 14306-G/09 
Bilal Khan:  
 
 
Applicant in HRC 14307-G/09 
Bashir Ahmad Chowhan:  
Applicant in HRC 14308-G/09 
Saleem Ullah Khan:  
 
Applicant in HRC 14309-G/09 
 
For the applicants/  
Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC  
affectees: 
 
 
Assisted by Mr. Sajeel Shehryar, Advocate 
(on behalf of 69 officers) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Ikram Chaudhry, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(on behalf of M. Hafeez of Foreign service) 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(in HRC 9504-G & 13936-G/09) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(on behalf of Khurshid Anwar of Foreign service) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Haider Hussain, ASC 
(on behalf of M. Saleem & Masood of Accounts 
service) 
Mr. Saleemullah Khan,  
(in person in HRC 14309-G/09) 
 
Nemo in HRC 14306-7/G of 2009 
 
On Court notice: 
 
Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, AGP. 
 
For the Estt. Division: 
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mian Hassan Aurangzeb, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr.M.S. Khattak, AOR 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Ismail Qureshi, Secretary. 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Munir Ahmed, Sr. JS. 
 
 
 
           Syed Mubashar Raza, JS. 
 
For Foreign Office:  
Mr. Ishtiaq H. Andrabi, Addl. Secy (A) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shair Bahadur Khan, Legal Advisor 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
2 
 
Promoted Officers: 
Mr.Athar Tahir,  Mr.Naguibullah Malik,  
(On court Notice) 
Mr.Abdul Ghafar Soomro, Maj. ®  Qamar Zaman, 
Mr.Imtiaz Hussain Qazi, Mr.Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, 
Mr.Shahid Rashid, Mr.Nasir Mahmood Khan Khosa, 
Mr.Javed Iqbal, Mr.Nazar Hussain Mahar, Mr.Junaid 
Iqbal, Mr.M.Sami Saeed, Mr.Imtiaz Inayat Elahi, 
Mr.Javed Mehmood, Mr.Ghulam Ali Pasha, Khawaja 
Khalid Farooq, Syed Shabbir Ahmed, Mr.Tariq 
Masood Khan Khosa, Dr.Wasim Kausar, Mr.Tariq 
Saleem Dogar, Syed Jawed Ali Shah Bukhari, 
Mr.Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi, Mr.Jaweed Akhtar, 
Dr.Inamullah Khan, Mr.Khalid Idrees, Neelam S. Ali, 
Mr.Abdul 
Shafiq, 
Mr.Ahmed 
Mehmood 
Zahid, 
Mr.Batool Iqbal Qureshi, Mr.Ghulam Rasool Ahpan, 
Mr.Gul 
Muhammad 
Rind, 
Mr.Anisul 
Hassnain 
Musavi, Mr.Agha Sarwar Qizalbash, Mr.Ghalibuddin, 
Mr.Ayub Tarin, Mr.Asif Usman Khan, Mr.Mansoor 
Sohail, Mr.Haroon Shaukat.  (all in person) 
 
 
Dates of hearing:  
10.11.09, 26.11.09, 7.1.2010, 20.1.2010, 26.1.2010, 
28.1.2010, 29.1.2010 & 15.02.2010. 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.  Facts in brief, relevant for disposal of 
instant HR Cases, are that one Mr. Tariq Aziz-ud-Din from the Foreign Service 
Group, moved an application dated 6th November, 2009, addressed to Chief Justice 
of Pakistan, stating therein that Government of Pakistan has made promotions of 
officers of various occupational groups, including Foreign Service group to which 
he also belong, from BS-21 to BS-22, in total violation of Constitutional basis and 
principles of merit, seniority and fair play. He added in the application that the 
competent authority has no arbitrary power under the law to pick and choose on 
his whims although he sits as head of Selection Board. It is averred by him that in 
this way his fundamental right to expect a fair career progression has been violated 
as his juniors have been promoted while superseding him without any justification. 
The application was registered as HR Case No. 8340-G/2009.  
2. 
 
Initially, the comments on the above said application were called 
from the Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, 
however, ultimately the matter was ordered to be fixed in Court with notice to the 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
3 
Attorney General for Pakistan, Secretaries, Establishment & Foreign Affairs 
Divisions, applicant and all those officers who had been superseded as well as to 
the officers promoted by the Federal Government to be served through Secretary 
Establishment. In the meantime, some of the other affectees also approached the 
Court by way of filing separate applications, which were also registered as HR 
Cases, titled above and clubbed together.  
3. 
 
Subsequently, Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC, Mr. M. 
Ikram Chaudhry, ASC, Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khaki, ASC, Mr. Afnan Karim 
Kundi, ASC and Mr. Haider Hussain, ASC appeared on behalf of the 
applicants/officers who have not been promoted, whereas Mr. Abdul Hafeez 
Pirzada, Sr. ASC appeared on behalf of Federation of Pakistan through 
Establishment Division. Likewise, Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, Attorney General 
for Pakistan appeared on Court’s notice. On the other hand the officers promoted 
to BS-22 except few also appeared in response to the notices.    
4. 
 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the 
petitioners argued that:- 
  
a) 
In terms of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(2) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 
[hereinafter referred to as ‘CSA, 1973’], the Civil Servants 
(Appointment & Tenure of Post in BPS-22) Rules, 1993 [hereinafter 
referred to as ‘CSR, 1993’] were framed but these rules were 
rescinded on 4th April, 1998. In such situation, it is the responsibility 
of the Government to frame rules with regard to terms and 
conditions of the services of the Civil Servants in BS-22 and if there 
is no rules or law made in this regard, then it is called exploitation, 
within the meaning of Article 3 of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the 
Constitution’]. 
b) 
Section 9(2) of the CSA, 1973, mandates that recruitment should be 
made on merit, therefore, when merit comes, it excludes discretion. 
[Reliance placed on Lahore Development Authority  v.  Shamim 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
4 
Akhtar (2003 MLD 1549) and Adil Hamid   v.  Azad Jammu and 
Kashmir Govt. {1991 PLC (CS) 1195}].   
c) 
Despite framing of rules, if some discretion is left, it should be 
structured discretion, based on seven instruments of structuring of 
discretion and scope of that structuring of discretion is left only after 
framing of rules in the manner prescribed. 
d) 
When a criterion is to be structured by rules then the only rules are 
to be made applicable and nothing else and if no law or rules are 
framed then the Judge made laws shall fill in the vacuum.   
e) 
Merit of course can be taken into consideration with respect to the 
eligibility but eligibility does not militate against merit. [Reliance 
placed on Muhammad Anis   v.  Abdul Haseeb (PLD 1994 SC 539), 
Fazali Rehmani  v.  Chief Minister, NWFP (PLD 2008 SC 769) and 
Tanvir Shaukat   v.  District & Sessions Judge, Narowal (2009 
SCMR 764)].  
f) 
The promotion relates to the right to life of a civil servant because 
depriving him from the ultimate glory of his service i.e. BS-22, for 
which he had made sacrifices, would tantamount to scuttle of his 
right to life in terms of Article 9 of the Constitution. 
g) 
There are neither any rules, guidelines nor compulsions, therefore, 
the discretion of the Prime Minister, governing the transfers and 
promotions to BS-22 would negate the entire Esta. Code. [Referred 
to page 257 of the Esta. Code, 2007 Ed. (regarding Selection 
Board)]. 
h) 
Discretion vested in the competent authority is a sacred trust, which 
is to be exercised with application of mind to ensure equality of 
opportunity as envisaged in Article 2A of the Constitution. [Reliance 
placed on Chairman RTA   v.  Pak. Mutual Insurance Co. (PLD 
1991 SC 14), Director Food, NWFP   v.  Madina Flour and General 
Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2001 SC 1), Chief Secretary Punjab  v.  
Abdul Raoof Dasti (2006 SCMR 1876), Abdul Wahab  v.   
Secretary, Govt. of Balochistan (2009 SCMR 1354) and Delhi 
Transport Corpn.   v.  D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress (AIR 1991 SC 
101)]. 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
5 
He concluded his arguments by saying that the petitioners are claiming their right 
guaranteed by the Constitution and policy of merit, which obliges the trustees of 
the State powers i.e. the chosen representatives to exercise such power with all the 
conditions prevalent between the trustee and beneficiary. He also referred to the 
seniority list submitted by the Federal Government, demonstrating that the persons 
having just few months’ service in BS-21 have been promoted whereas no reason 
either for selection or rejection has been assigned. 
5. 
 
Mr. Afnan Karim Khundi, ASC appearing for some of the affectee 
officers, while adopting the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. 
ASC, added that:- 
a) 
An effort has been made by the Establishment Division in its 
comments/reply to the applications of the affectee officers, to strike 
some balance in terms of the Provincial representation in BS-22, 
however, the Provincial quota is only applicable to appointments 
initially made and not to be observed while making promotions, for 
which the criterion is performance, service record and seniority.  
b) 
While making promotions, gender balance is being struck by the 
Federal Government while picking up a person much below in the 
seniority just because she is a lady. Consideration of gender is not a 
criterion for promotion specially to the selection posts, where 
promotions have to be made on merit alone.  
c) 
The promotions in question were made without assigning any 
reasons regarding exercise of such discretion, which is in violation 
of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act.  
6. 
Mr. M. Ikram Chaudhry, learned ASC for one of the affectee officers, after 
giving the service history of the petitioner, argued that:- 
a) 
The competent authority has to exercise the discretion in the public 
interest with transparency, which lacks in the instant case. [Reliance 
placed on Zia Ullah Khan  v.  Govt. of Punjab (PLD 1989 Lahore 
554)].  
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
6 
b) 
When no reason has been assigned either for selection or rejection, 
therefore, it precisely means that the rule of pick & choose was the 
prime consideration and there is no transparency in the exercise of 
discretion by the competent authority. [Reliance placed on Aman 
Ullah Khan  v.  Federal Government of Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 
1092), Pak. Mutual Insurance Co.’s case (PLD 1991 SC 14) and Abu 
Bakar Siddique   v.  Collector of Customs (2006 SCMR 705)]. 
He concluded his submissions while arguing that although seniority is not the only 
consideration but it is to be observed to some extent, whereas, in instant case the 
opportunity to be considered for promotion has not been provided to the petitioner.  
7. 
 
Dr. Aslam Khaki, ASC appeared on behalf of affectee officers, and 
argued that:- 
a) 
Discretion must be based upon reasons but in the instant case, the 
petitioners represented by him have not been considered rather 
ignored, as such they have been condemned unheard against the 
principle of audi alteram partem. 
b) 
When there is no law on a subject, the principles of natural justice 
would be applicable.  
c) 
The competent authority was vested with powers to frame rules in 
terms of Section 9 of CSA, 1973, but the same has not been done, 
which shows the mala fide on its part.  
d) 
According to the injunctions of Islam as well as under Article 2A of 
the Constitution and the principles of policy, everything should be 
done on merit with justice. [Referred to the Holy Quran (Suah-e-Al-
Nisa verse 135)]. 
e) 
Some of the persons, who were even not eligible for promotion 
being not part of any occupational group and even not falling within 
the category of civil servants, such as officers of National Assembly 
and NLC, have been promoted in violation of rules and law.  
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
7 
8. 
 
Mr. Haider Hussain, ASC gave the service record of the petitioner 
represented by him and argued that:- 
a) 
The discretion is bound by the rule of reasons, which must be guided 
by law and must not be used in an arbitrary, vague and fanciful 
manner. [Reliance placed on Zubair Ahmad   v.  Shahid Mirza (2004 
SCMR 1747)].  
b) 
Civil servant has a right to be considered for promotion and similarly 
to be disclosed the reasons for not being promoted. [Reliance placed 
on Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi  v.   Govt. of Pakistan  {2003 PLC 
(CS) 503}].  
c) 
The four officers promoted in the occupational group of the 
petitioner i.e. the Audit Department, even do not qualify for 
promotion, as they had never served in BS-21 in that occupational 
group. 
9. 
 
On the other hand Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Sr. ASC, 
appearing for the Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary Establishment 
Division, argued that:- 
a) 
The material for promotions of all these officers was sent to the 
Prime Minister in November, 2008 which contains the service record 
of the entire 267 officers in Grade 21. This record remained with the 
Prime Minister for consideration until September, 2009 (almost for a 
period of 10/11 months), therefore, the competent authority has 
made these promotions with due application of mind. 
b)  
This Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the exercise of 
power by a lawful authority as it has only to satisfy itself as to 
whether the reducible minimum requirements of good governance 
have been complied with or not, and the benefit of doubt, if any, will 
go in favour of the validity of the action taken by the competent 
authority and not against it. Onus, therefore, very heavily lies upon 
the person coming to challenge that there has been a foul play in the 
exercise of executive discretion. 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
8 
c) 
The Officers who are working in BS-21 and have not been promoted 
to BS-22, shall continue to be eligible for promotion to BS-22 in 
future, therefore, there is no question of supersession. 
d) 
Originally only eight persons, who were not promoted, out of 213, 
approached this Court, whereas a vast majority of them have not 
come to the Court for the redressal of their grievance and some of 
them have made the representation before the competent authority 
for revisiting of their cases. 
e) 
In order to see whether the discretion has been exercised properly or 
not by the competent authority, this Court has to scrutinize each and 
every case individually in order to severe the good from the bad.  
f) 
The principles of seniority, fitness and aptness, as claimed by the 
affectee officers, are not applicable in a case of promotion from BS-
21 to BS-22. 
g) 
The Rules were framed during the time of caretaker government by 
virtue of SRO.1047(I)/1993 dated 23rd October 1993 in respect of 
BS-22, which were rescinded in the year 1998 through notification 
dated 4th April 1998 and since then the Judge made laws have taken 
effect, therefore, the Court has to satisfy itself in favour of validity 
of an action, rather than to strike it down, particularly when it will 
affect a lot of innocent and deserving persons. 
h) 
The discretion exercised by the competent authority can only be 
challenged on the grounds of illegality, bias or malice or mala fide, 
and proceedings being corum non judice, but in the instant case at 
the best, the question is of irrationality or lack of procedural 
propriety, which even has not been substantiated at all by the 
petitioner/affectee officers.  
j) 
The competent authority has exercised the discretion after 
considering record of each person, with due application of mind, 
though the satisfaction will not be the same as that of the Court but it 
cannot be said that the competent authority has not applied its mind. 
k) 
Instant cases are not maintainable as the applicants have failed to 
show as to how their right to life being a fundamental right is 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
9 
affected in view of the fact that they are only entitled to be 
considered for promotion and even promotion is not a right, 
especially when they will continue to be considered for promotion 
every time when there are vacancies. 
 
 
 
 
 
and 
Apart from this right no other right has been pleaded or claimed. A 
right to be considered for promotion cannot be equated with right to 
life or right to access to justice, etc. under Articles 9 and 25 of the 
Constitution. In absence of violation of any fundamental rights, 
although the matter is of great public importance, this Court may not 
exercise jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution, as 
these are individual grievances.  
l) 
Immediately prior to promotions, eleven Additional Secretaries from 
BS-21 were acting as Secretaries holding independent Divisions, 
whereas three Inspectors General of Police and three Chief 
Secretaries were also working on acting charge basis, and their 
performance was known to the competent authority, which was one 
of the consideration for promotion. 
m) 
While making the promotion under challenge, the competent 
authority had tried to maintain gender balance. [Referred to Articles 
27(1) read with 34 and 37(f) of the Constitution]. 
n) 
The competent authority has also tried to observe the quota while 
making the promotions under challenge, as interpreted by this Court 
in number of judgments to be the basic feature of the Constitution. 
o) 
When actions are taken in exercise of executive discretion, the 
Courts of Appeal in England have introduced new element in the 
doctrine of promissory estopple ‘of proportionality’. In future, this 
Court would be called upon to judge such actions on the doctrine of 
proportionality i.e. is the action proportionate to the requirement or 
not. [Referred to Council for Civil Service Unions (CCSU) v. 
Minister for the Civil Service [1984] 3 All ER 935 (administrative 
actions subject to judicial review) and R.   v.   Secretary of State 
[1985] 1 All ER 40 – [the doctrine of proportionality in the law of 
estopple]. 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
10 
p) 
The grievance of the petitioner/affectee officers are personal in 
nature and not that of public importance. [Reliance placed on All 
Pakistan Newspapers Society  v.  Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2004 
SC 600)]. 
q) 
Absence of rules will not render any action, otherwise lawfully 
taken, to be unlawful. The words ‘necessary or expedient’ used in 
Section 25 of CSA, 1973 are not mandatory but directory in nature.  
r) 
Although, the exercise of discretion by the competent authority is 
subject to judicial review but the standard required for judicial 
review will have to be different in case of civil servant, who is 
already part and parcel of the State vis-a-vis the citizen who seeks 
remedy against the Government. 
s) 
If the affectee officers are aggrieved from the order of promotion 
under challenge, they should go and seek indivi dual remedy before 
the competent forum and not through the instant proceedings.  
He concluded his arguments while saying that according to his instructions, the 
Government will frame rules with prospective effect in view of the fact that if the 
rules are made retrospectively it will cause difficulties because some delegated 
legislation creates rights ex post facto.  
10. 
 
In rebuttal Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC added with 
respect to the question whether fundamental rights are involved or not, that it is 
not the case of promoted or ignored employees, rather it is a case running the 
Government in accordance with the Constitution and the Rules of Business. 
According to him right to employment is a public undertaking as a fundamental 
right, derivable from Article 9 of the Constitution. He referred to Pakistan Muslim 
League (N)  v.  Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642) and Rule 5(10)(c), 
15(2) & (4) of the Rules of Business. Lastly he referred to Sajjad Ahmed Javed 
Bhatti     v.   Secretary, Establishment Division [2009 PC (CS) 981] whereby the 
Service Tribunal directed the Establishment for framing of Rules. 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
11 
11. 
 
Mr. Ikram Chaudhry, ASC placed on record extract from the 
American Constitution (para 1 from page 12) on the point that whether the king is 
the law or the law is the king. He also referred to the book Fundamental law of 
Pakistan by A.K. Brohi to elaborate public policy and public interest.  
12. 
 
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, ASC argued that the admission made by 
the counsel for the Federation of Pakistan to the effect that there is need to make 
the rules as required by Section 9(1) of CSA, 1973, concedes our entire case as if 
there is need to make rules now, then there was always need to have made rules 
well in time. While referring to Rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, 
Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, he added that the senior most officer should 
be given the acting charge, therefore, the consideration prevailed upon the 
competent authority that 17 officers were already functioning in BS-22 on acting 
charge basis, conceded my case because the seniority is the determining factor for 
promotion to BS-22.  
13. 
 
Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned Attorney General for Pakistan 
made his submissions as under:- 
a) 
Section 9 of CSA, 1973 has two portions i.e. eligibility and how 
selection is to be made. Section 9(1) provides firstly, the eligibility 
for promotion having minimum qualification as may be prescribed, 
in the cadre to which he belongs, and secondly the proviso provides 
that promotion to the post of Secretary be made in the public 
interest, therefore, every person in BS-21 will be eligible if he 
possesses minimum qualification and distinction between this 
promotion and normal promotion is in the ‘public interest’.  
b) 
Section 9(2) of CSA, 1973 emphasized upon the word ‘merit’ so the 
eligibility for the purpose of promotion is not the sole consideration 
as thereafter ‘merit’ will come. So all the persons are eligible and 
merit is to be looked into amongst them. [Reliance placed on 
Muhammad Yousaf  v. Abdul Rashid (1996 SCMR 1297)].  
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
12 
c) 
Once a person comes within the ambit of Section 9(1) of CSA, 1973 
then the factum of his being acceptable, appropriate, approved and 
befitting will not be considered. [Reliance placed on Muhammad 
Anis’s case Supra.  
d) 
The sole criterion for selection post is merit. [Reliance placed on 
Ghuman Singh   v.  State of Rajasthan {(1971) 2 SCC 452},  State of 
West Bengal   v.   Manas Kumar Chakrabarti (AIR 2003 SC 524) 
and Union of India and others Versus Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh 
Kadyan and another {(2000) 6 SCC 698}.  
e) 
There is no dispute qua the power of this Court to review any order 
passed by Executive. [emphasized upon the word ‘any’]. However, 
if a person, who feels aggrieved from a particular order, unable to 
show as to with what he is aggrieved and the reasons to which he is 
aggrieved, then it will not be appropriate to throw away an order 
passed by the executive, unless there is something so specific.   
f) 
In absence of rules, when there is complete practice for the past so 
many years and it is continuing everyday, therefore, if the competent 
authority has passed an order on the basis of custom and well known 
principles regarding consistent departmental practice then malice or 
mala fide cannot be attributed to it.  
g) 
For the past 60 years, whilst a promotion is made in BS-22, there has 
not been a single occasion where a summary has been moved for 
promotion and only the files are being sent to the Prime Minister, 
who examines them and choose to pass an order. This custom and 
practice has been followed in the instant case and has not been 
deviated from. 
h) 
The competent authority has exercised its discretion properly, 
keeping in view the settled principles of discretion.   
j) 
Section 9(3) of the CSA, 1973 places a restriction upon the 
competent authority that the promotion to the post of BS-20 & 21 
shall not be made without the recommendations of the Selection 
Board, whereas, for promotion to the post of BS-22, there is no such 
restriction and it is left on the ‘assessment’ of the competent 
authority to select the person upon whom he has reasonable 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
13 
confidence, from those who are eligible, as such now the question of 
seniority towards eligibility goes out, that is why the lawmaker has 
omitted the word ‘BS-22’ from this Section.  
k) 
It is duty of the Court to interpret and explain the law; when we 
expand the scope of a certain law, we have to remain within the 
parameters of the law. If the Court ultimately came to the conclusion 
that promotion to BS-22 had to be made in the same manner as 
provided for BS-20 or 21, then the Court is expanding the scope of 
law. [Referred to R (ProLife Alliance)   v.  BBC (2003) 2 All ER 
977].  
 
14. 
 
Notices were also issued to the officers promoted to BS-22 to 
provide them opportunity to appear and make submissions in support of their 
cases. They appeared in-person on 12th & 15th February, 2010 and explained their 
service profile and stated that vested rights had accrued to them vide impugned 
notifications. According to them they were promoted purely on merit and they had 
not exercised any political or other influence and the information of their 
promotion was conveyed to them through news, release in electronic or print 
media. It was their case that have un-blemished service record and lot of 
experience to perform their duties in different capacities. During the service they 
had secured higher education, passed the departmental examinations and courses 
with distinction, therefore, they were promoted by the competent authority by 
comparing their qualifications, experience, ability, eligibility with the officers who 
were not promoted. Some of them stated, they were going to retire on attaining the 
age of superannuation after availing the benefits of BS-22, therefore, justice 
demands that notification should not be set-aside otherwise their reputation would 
be damaged. The officers of the police group submitted that they belonged to 
discipline force and Officer in BS-21 is equal to Major General and Officer in BS-
22 is equal to Lt. General, therefore, seniority is not a criterion and the competent 
authority has discretion to promote any officer. They added that it would not be in 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
14 
the interest of justice and in case notifications are set aside, it would be difficult 
for them to perform their duties, removing their badges of ranks and down grading 
from BS-22 to BS-21. 
   
15. 
 
Since the cases are required to be decided on the basis of facts and 
figures and not in vacuum, it is necessary to reproduce hereinbelow service record 
of officers promoted and non-promoted from BS-21 to BS-22 along with relevant 
details:- 
a)     List of Officers of the District Management Group (DMG) BS-21 Officers who  
were promoted vis -à-vis who were not promoted to BS-22 Posts on or after 04.09.2009. 
 
  Sr.# 
Seniority 
Position 
in BS-21. 
Name of the Officer  
Date of Joining
Date of 
Notification of 
promotion to 
BS-21 
Remarks 
1. 
1 
Mr. Muhammad Asadullah 
Sheikh 
01.12.1973 
30.05.2009 
Not promoted 
2. 
2 
Syed Tanveer Abbas Jaffary 
20.02.1976 
11.08.2003 
Not promoted 
3. 
3 
Mr. Mohammad Athar Tahir  
12.03.1977 
11.08.2003 
Promoted  
4. 
4 
Mr. Shahid Hussain Raja  
21.03.1977 
20.07.2004 
Not promoted  
5. 
5 
Mr. Shaukat Hayat Durrani 
21.03.1977 
08.09.2003 
Not promoted  
6. 
6 
Mr. Neguib Ullah Malik  
00.10.1973 
20.07.2004 
Promoted 
7. 
7 
Mr. Asif Bajwa 
21.03.1977 
08.07.2004 
Promoted 
8. 
8 
Mr. Abdul Ghaffar Soomro 
21.03.1977 
06.08.2004 
Promoted 
9. 
9 
Capt.(R) Akhtar Munir Murwat  
26.08.1974 
19.09.2005 
Not promoted  
10. 
10. 
Syed Mohammad Hamid 
20.02.1976 
03.01.2006 
Not promoted  
11. 
11 
Qamar Zaman Major (R) 
01.06.1982 
19.09.2005 
Prompted  
12. 
12 
Mrs. Farkhanda Waseem Afzal 
08.03.1978 
24.09.2005 
Not promoted 
13. 
13 
Mr. Hassan Waseem Afzal 
08.03.1978 
24.09.2005 
Not promoted  
14. 
14 
Mr. Mohammad Javed Malik  
08.03.1978 
24.09.2005 
Not promoted 
15. 
15 
Mr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman  
08.03.1978 
24.12.2005 
Not promoted  
16. 
16 
Mr. Saeed Ahmad Khan  
08.03.1978 
14.10.2005 
Not promoted 
17. 
17 
Mr. Imtiaz Hussain Kazi 
08.03.1978 
26.10.2005 
Promoted  
18. 
18 
Mrs. Rukhsana Saleem 
08.03.1978 
19.09.2005 
Promoted  
19. 
19 
Mr. Ishtiak Ahmed Khan 
08.03.1978 
19.09.2005 
Promoted  
20. 
20 
Mr. Munawar Opel 
08.03.1978 
15.02.2006 
Not promoted 
21. 
21 
Mr. Tariq Yousuf 
30.12.1974 
08.11.2006 
Not promoted 
22. 
22 
Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Maj. (R) 
28.06.1983 
08.11.2006 
Not promoted 
23. 
23 
Shahibzada M. Khalid Maj. (R) 
01.06.1983 
20.10.2006 
Not promoted 
24. 
24 
Mr. Shahid Rashid 
29.03.1979 
08.11.2006 
Promoted  
25. 
25 
Mr. Nasir Mehmood Khan Khosa  
29.03.1979 
20.10.2006 
Promoted  
26. 
26 
Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed  
29.03.1979 
20.10.2006 
Not promoted 
27. 
27 
Mr. Shafiq Hussain Bokhari  
29.03.1979 
20.10.2006 
Not promoted 
28. 
28 
Mr. Abdul Wajid Rana  
29.03.1979 
20.10.2006 
Not promoted 
29. 
29 
Mr. Kamran Lashari 
29.03.1976 
02.01.2008 
Promoted  
30. 
30 
Mr. Javed Iqbal 
29.03.1979 
20.10.2006 
Promoted  
31. 
31 
Mr. Nazar Hussain Mehr  
29.03.1979 
20.10.2006 
Promoted  
32. 
32 
Mr. Fasi-ud-Din 
29.03.1979 
20.10.2006 
Not promoted 
33. 
33 
Kh. Muhammad Siddiq Akbar 
29.03.1979 
22.11.2008 
Not promoted 
34. 
34 
Mr. Junaid Iqbal Ch. Flt. Lt. 
08.03.1980 
07.11.2006 
Promoted  
35. 
35 
Mr. Muhammad Abbas Lt. 
10.03.1980 
08.11.2006 
Not promoted 
36. 
36 
Mr. Ahsanullah Khan  
21.04.1977 
27.08.2008 
Not promoted 
37. 
37 
Mr. Faridullah Khan  
29.03.1979 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
38. 
38 
Kh. Muhammad Naeem  
10.07.1984 
25.06.2008 
Not promoted 
39. 
39 
Prince Abbas Khan  
10.07.1984 
08.01.2008 
Not promoted 
40. 
40 
Maj. (R) Haroon Rashid  
14.11.1984 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
41. 
41 
Capt.(R) Ghulam Dastagir Akhtar  
08.03.1980 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
42. 
42 
Azhar Hussain Shamim 
05.04.1980 
02.06.2009 
Not pro moted 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
15 
43. 
43 
Mr. Sohail Ahmed  
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Promoted  
44. 
44 
Mr. M. Sami Saeed 
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Promoted  
45. 
45 
Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Tarar  
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
46. 
46 
Mr. Attaullah Khan  
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
47. 
47 
Mr. Javed Aslam  
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
48. 
48 
Kazi Afaq Hussain  
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
49. 
49 
Mr. M. Javed Iqbal Awan 
05.04.1980 
12.01.2008 
Not promoted 
50. 
50 
Mr. Shafqat Hussain Naghmi 
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
51. 
51 
Mr. Muhmmad Arif Azim  
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
52. 
52 
Mr. Muhammad Ayub Qazi 
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
53. 
53 
Mr. Habibullah Khan Khattak  
05.04.1980 
27.08.2008 
Not promoted 
54. 
54 
Mr. Imtiaz Inyat Elahi 
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Promoted  
55. 
55 
Mr. Javed Mahmood 
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Promoted  
56. 
56 
Mrs. Viqar-un-Zeb 
05.04.1980 
02.01.2008 
Not promoted 
57. 
57 
Mr. Anwar Ahmad Khan 
05.04.1980 
04.01.2008 
Not promoted 
58. 
58 
Mr. Tauqir Ahmed  
20.02.1976 
26.06.2008 
Not promoted 
59. 
59 
Mr. Liaquat Ali  
22.02.1976 
26.06.2008 
Not promoted 
60. 
60 
Mr. M. Maqbool Ahmad Khan  
05.04.1980 
08.07.2008 
Not promoted 
61. 
61 
Mr. Ghulam Ali Shah  
05.04.1980 
26.06.2008 
Promoted  
62. 
62 
Mr. Ahmed Bakhsh Lehri  
05.04.1980 
25.06.2008 
Promoted  
63. 
63 
Mrs. Nargis Sethi  
05.04.1980 
26.08.2008 
Promoted  
  
b)     List of Officers of the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) BS-21 Officers who  
were promoted vis -à-vis who were not promoted to BS-22 Posts on or after 04.09.2009. 
 
  Sr.# 
Seniority 
Position 
in BS-21. 
Name of the Officer  
Date of Joining
Date of 
Notification of 
promotion to 
BS-21 
Remarks 
1. 
1 
Mr. Azhar Ali Farooqui 
24.12.1971 
30.04.2008 
Promoted 
2. 
2 
Mr. Muhammad Arshad Saeed 
27.12.1972 
24.11.2007 
Not promoted 
3. 
3 
Mr. Irfan Mahmood  
23.12.1972 
21.06.2003 
Not promoted 
4. 
4 
Syed Irshad Hussain  
23.12.1972 
22.10.2002 
Not promoted 
5. 
5 
Mr. Niaz Ahmad Siddiki 
26.01.1973 
11.11.2004 
Not promoted 
6. 
6 
Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed Khan Niazi 
26.12.1972 
24.09.2005 
Not promoted 
7. 
7 
Mr. Shaukat Ali Khan  
01.12.1973 
12.11.2005 
Not promoted 
8. 
8 
Mr. Israr Ahmad  
31.12.1974 
25.01.2007 
Not promoted 
9. 
9 
Mr. Muhammad Ejaz Akram 
30.12.1974 
25.01.2007 
Not promoted 
10. 
10 
Mr. Tahir Arif 
30.12.1974 
07.08.2008 
Not promoted 
11. 
11 
Mirza Muhammad Yasin  
30.12.1974 
19.12.2006 
Not promoted 
12. 
12 
Mr. Khalid Farooq  
30.12.1974 
25.01.2007 
Promoted 
13. 
13 
Mr. Muhammad Wasim 
30.12.1974 
25.01.2007 
Not promoted 
14. 
14 
Mr. Fayyaz Ahmed Mir  
30.12.1974 
25.01.2007 
Not promoted 
15. 
15 
Mr. Abdul Latif Khan  
30.12.1974 
01.03.2007 
Not promoted 
16. 
16 
Syed Shabbir Ahmed  
30.12.1974 
24.02.2007 
Promoted 
17. 
17 
Mr. Shaukat Hayat 
10.01.1975 
18.07.2007 
Retired 
18. 
18 
Mr. Rahoo Khan Brohi 
30.12.1974 
04.01.2007 
Not promoted 
19. 
19 
Mr. Akhtar Hussain Memon  
17.02.1975 
30.04.2008 
Not promoted 
20. 
20 
Mr. Tariq Masood Khan Khosa 
20.02.1976 
19.12.2006 
Promoted 
21. 
21 
Malik Muhammad Iqbal  
20.02.1976 
10.02.2007 
Not promoted 
22. 
22 
Mr. Iftikhar Ahmed  
20.02.1976 
19.12.2006 
Not promoted 
23. 
23 
Mr. Asif Nawaz  
20.02.1976 
10.02.2007 
Not promoted 
24. 
24 
Mr. Zahid Mahmood  
20.02.1976 
07.08.2008 
Not promoted 
25. 
25 
Mr. Fiaz Ahmed Khan  
20.02.1976 
16.01.2007 
Not promoted 
26. 
26 
Mr. Javed Iqbal 
20.02.1976 
07.08.2008 
Promoted 
27. 
27 
Mr. Zafar Ahmed Farooqi 
20.02.1976 
01.03.2007 
Not promoted 
28. 
28 
Mr. M. Azam Khan Maj.(R) 
01.06.1982 
26.04.2007 
Not promoted 
29. 
29 
Mr. Muhammad Habib-ur-Rehman 
05.02.1976 
26.04.2007 
Not promoted 
30. 
30 
Dr. Wasim Kausar  
21.03.1977 
26.04.2007 
Promoted 
31. 
31 
Mr. Abdul Majeed  
21.03.1977 
10.02.2007 
Not promoted 
32. 
32 
Mr. Tariq Saleem  
30.12.1974 
10.02.2007 
Promoted 
33. 
33 
Mr. Javed Noor  
21.03.1977 
10.02.2007 
Promoted 
34. 
34 
Mr. Aftab Sultan  
21.03.1977 
10.02.2007 
Not promoted 
35. 
35 
Mr. Fakharuddin  
30.12.1974 
07.08.2008 
Not promoted 
36. 
36 
Mr. Shamsul Hassan 
21.03.1977 
09.08.2008 
Not promoted 
37. 
37 
Mr. Humayun Raza Shafi 
21.03.1977 
01.06.2009 
Not promoted 
38. 
38 
Mr. Zafarullah Khan  
21.03.1977 
29.05.2009 
Not promoted 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
16 
39. 
39 
Mr. Waseem Ahmed  
09.09.1974 
29.05.2009 
Not promoted 
40. 
40 
Syed Mohammad Saqlain Naqvi 
23.06.1973 
01.06.2009 
Not promoted 
41. 
41 
Wajid Ali Durrani 
08.03.1978 
15.06.2009 
Not promoted 
42. 
42 
Sayyed Jawed Ali Shah Bukhari 
29.01.1974 
29.05.2009 
Promoted 
 
     c)    List of Officers of the Secretariat Group BS-21 Officers who were  
promoted vis -à-vis who were not promoted to BS-22 Posts on or after 04.09.2009. 
 
  Sr.# 
Seniority 
Position 
in BS-21. 
Name of the Officer  
Date of Joining
Date of 
Notification of 
promotion to 
BS-21 
Remarks 
1. 
       1 
Mr. Humayun Ishaque Chohan  
20.04.1974 
06.07.2004 
Not promoted  
2. 
       2 
Mr. Liaquat Ali Chaudhry 
30.12.1974 
25.11.2006 
Not promoted 
3. 
3 
Mr. Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi 
20.11.1974 
07.10.2006 
Promoted  
4. 
4 
Mr. Bashir Ahmed Chauhan  
30.12.1974 
07.10.2006 
Not promoted 
5. 
5 
Mr. Shaukat Nawaz Tahir  
30.12.1974 
07.10.2006 
Not promoted 
6. 
6 
Mrs. Hahnaz S. Hamid  
30.12.1973 
31.10.2006 
Not promoted 
7. 
7 
Mr. Jaweed Akhtar 
(inducted in Sectt: Group from 
NLC)  
17.11.2007 
17.11.2007 
Inducted & 
promoted on 
the same day  
8. 
8 
Mr. Irfan Nadeem Syed  
20.02.1976 
21.01.2008 
Not promoted 
9. 
9 
Mr. Inamullah Khan  
30.01.1974 
18.12.2007 
Promoted 
10. 
10. 
Mr. Fakhar Abbas Naqvi  
25.03.1975 
21.01.2008 
Not promoted 
11. 
11 
Mr. Khalid Idrees 
30.12.1974 
18.12.2007 
Promoted 
12. 
12 
Mrs. Neelam S. Ali  
19.03.1975 
29.12.2007 
Promoted 
13. 
13 
Mr. Zaid Usman  
30.12.1974 
16.05.2009 
Not promoted 
14. 
14 
Mr. Abdul Shafiq 
22.03.1975 
16.05.2009 
Promoted 
15. 
15 
Mr. Ali Akbar Bhurgri 
26.05.1975 
26.06.2008 
Not promoted 
16. 
16 
Mr. Attiq-ur-Rehman Malik  
20.02.1976 
18.12.2007 
Not promoted 
17. 
17 
Mr. Anwar Hafeez Khan  
20.02.1976 
00.10.2008 
Not promoted 
18. 
18 
Sheikh Anjum Bashir  
20.02.1976 
25.05.2009 
Not promoted 
19. 
19 
Raja Muhammad Ikramul Haq 
20.02.1976 
18.12.2007 
Not promoted 
20. 
20 
Mr. Ahmad Mahmood Zahid  
20.02.1976 
18.12.2007 
Promoted 
21. 
21 
Mrs. Batool Iqbal Qureshi  
20.02.1976 
18.12.2007 
Promoted 
22. 
22 
Mr. Fazal-i-Qadir  
20.02.1976 
18.12.2007 
Not promoted 
23. 
23 
Mr. Abdul Majid  
30.12.1974 
19.06.2008 
Not promoted 
24. 
24 
Mr. Shahid Latif Anwar  
30.12.1974 
11.06.2008 
Not promoted 
25. 
25 
Mr. Naeem Baig 
30.12.1974 
22.10.2008 
Not promoted 
26. 
26 
Mr. Sharshar Ahmed Khan  
21.03.1977 
29.11.2008 
Not promoted 
27. 
27 
Mr. Ghulam Rasool Ahpan 
26.05.1975 
28.05.2009 
Promoted 
28. 
28 
Syed Turab Haider Zaidi 
20.02.1976 
07.05.2009 
Not promoted 
29. 
29 
Mrs. Rukan Abdullah Shah Gardezi 
06.12.1976 
07.05.2009 
Not promoted 
30. 
30 
Mr. Ziauddin  
17.02.1977 
07.05.2009 
Not promoted 
31. 
31 
Mr. Moosa Raza Effendi  
31.03.1977 
07.08.2009 
Not promoted 
32. 
32 
Mian Mohammad Younus 
21.03.1977 
07.05.2009 
Not promoted 
33. 
33 
Mr. Zaeem Ahmed Chaudhry 
21.03.1977 
04.07.2009 
Not promoted 
34. 
34 
Miss Naheed Rizvi  
21.03.1977 
06.06.2009 
Not promoted 
35. 
35 
Mr.Muhammad Ahsan Akhtar Malik  
21.03.1977 
07.05.2009 
Not promoted 
36. 
36 
Mr. Sikandar Hayat Maken  
21.03.1977 
07.05.2009 
Not promoted 
37. 
37 
Ch. Mohammad Azam  
21.03.1977 
12.05.2009 
Not promoted 
38. 
38 
Mr. Muhammad Anwar Khan  
30.10.1988 
07.05.2009 
Not promoted 
39. 
39 
Mr. Khalid Ahmed Khan  
21.03.1977 
07.05.2009 
Not promoted 
40. 
40 
Mr. Ghul Mohammad Rind  
21.03.1977 
23.05.2009 
Promoted 
 
d)  List of Officers of the Commerce & Trade Group BS-21 Officers who were  
promoted vis -à-vis who were not promoted to BS-22 Posts on or after 04.09.2009. 
 
  Sr.# 
Seniority 
Position 
in BS-21. 
Name of the Officer  
Date of Joining
Date of 
Notification of 
promotion to 
BS-21 
Remarks 
1. 
(not 
provided) 
Mr. Tariq Iqbal Puri  
01.12.1973 
(not provided) 
Promoted 
2. 
2 
Mr. Rahatul Ain 
30.12.1974 
07.01.2004 
Not promoted  
3. 
3 
Mr. Naved Arif  
30.12.1974 
29.12.2006 
Not promoted  
4. 
4 
Agha Zafar Mehdi Shah  
09.10.1973 
25.09.2009 
Not promoted  
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
17 
 
e)    List of Officers of the Income Tax Group BS-21 Officers who were  
        promoted vis -à-vis who were not promoted to BS-22 Posts on or after 04.09.2009. 
 
  Sr.# 
Seniority 
Position 
in BS-21. 
Name of the Officer  
Date of Joining
Date of 
Notification of 
promotion to 
BS-21 
Remarks 
1. 
1 
Mr. Ihsan-ul-Haq 
31.12.1974 
14.10.2002 
Not promoted  
2. 
2 
Mr. Naseer Ahmad  
31.12.1974 
26.01.2005 
Not promoted  
3. 
3 
Mr. Muhammad Istataat Ali  
30.12.1974 
23.06.2006 
Not promoted  
4. 
4 
Mr. Khawar Khurshid Butt 
30.12.1974 
23.06.2006 
Not promoted  
5. 
5 
Mr. Masood Ali Jamshed  
30.12.1974 
23.06.2006 
Not promoted  
6. 
6 
Mr. Bilal Khan  
30.12.1974 
23.06.2006 
Not promoted  
7. 
7 
Mr. Muhammad Fiayaz Khan  
20.01.1976 
23.06.2006 
Not promoted  
8. 
8 
Mr. Qurban Ali  
20.02.1976 
11.03.2008 
Not promoted  
9. 
9 
Mr. Shahid Azam Khan  
20.02.1976 
23.06.2006 
Not promoted  
10. 
10 
Mr. Nazir Ahmad  
20.02.1976 
23.06.2006 
Not promoted  
11. 
11 
Mr. Anis-ul-Hasnain Musavi 
16.03.1976 
19.12.2007 
Promoted  
12. 
12 
Khawaja Shaukat Ali 
21.03.1977 
19.12.2007 
Not promoted  
13. 
13 
Mr. Asrar Raouf  
12.03.1977 
19.12.2007 
Not promoted  
14. 
14 
Agha Sarwar Raza Qazilbash 
21.03.1977 
19.12.2007 
Promoted 
f)  List of Officers of the Pakistan Audit & Accounts Service BS-21 Officers who  
were promoted vis -à-vis who were not promoted to BS-22 Posts on or after 04.09.2009. 
 
  Sr.# 
Seniority 
Position 
in BS-21. 
Name of the Officer  
Date of Joining
Date of 
Notification of 
promotion to 
BS-21 
Remarks 
1. 
1 
Mr. Asif Mahmood Malik  
01.12.1973 
14.05.2002 
Not promoted  
2. 
2 
Mr. Javed Arif  
01.12.1973 
09.08.2004 
Promoted  
3. 
3 
Mr. Masud Muazaffar  
30.121.1974 
28.09.2005 
Not promoted 
4. 
4 
Mr. Yawar Zia 
30.12.1974 
28.09.2005 
Not promoted 
5. 
5 
Mr. Muhammad Ayub Khan Tarin  
10.01.1975 
30.09.2006 
Promoted 
6. 
6 
Mr. Shaukat Muhammad Lundkhaur  
10.01.1975 
15.12.2007 
Not promoted 
7. 
7 
Mr. Muhammad Anwar  
30.12.1974 
10.01.2008 
Not promoted 
8. 
8 
Mr. Muhammad Saleem  
30.12.1974 
15.12.2007 
Not promoted 
9. 
9 
Mr. Muzammil Tayeb Sultan  
30.12.2007 
15.12.2007 
Not promoted 
10. 
10 
Mr. Abdul Waheed Khan  
20.02.1976 
15.12.2007 
Not promoted 
11. 
11 
Mr. Jehangir Aziz  
20.02.1976 
02.05.2008 
Not promoted 
12. 
12 
Ms. Saseem Akhtar  
20.02.1976 
15.09.2008 
Not promoted 
13. 
13 
Mr. Sohail Ahmed  
17.05.1976 
30.04.2009 
Not promoted 
14. 
14 
Mr. Anees Marghub  
20.02.1976 
16.06.2008 
Not promoted 
15. 
15 
Shaikh Muhammad Awais  
20.02.1976 
16.06.2008 
Not promoted 
16. 
16 
Mr. Allah Bux Khan Kalyar  
20.02.1976 
30.04.2009 
Not promoted 
17. 
17 
Mr. Shah Nawaz Khan  
20.02.1976 
30.04.2009 
Not promoted 
18. 
18 
Syed Moazzam Hussain  
20.02.1976 
30.04.2009 
Not promoted 
19. 
19 
Mr. Ghalibuddin  
30.12.1950 
20.02.1976 
Promoted 
20. 
20 
Mr. Saeed Ahmed Panhwar  
20.02.1976 
11.05.2009 
Not promoted 
21. 
21 
Mr. Ejaz Ali Pirzada  
20.02.1976 
30.04.2009 
Not promoted 
22. 
22 
Rana Assad Amin  
21.03.1977 
30.04.2009 
Not promoted 
23. 
23 
Mr. Zahid Saeed  
21.03.1977 
30.04.2009 
Not promoted 
24. 
24 
Mr. Muhammad Junaid  
21.03.1977 
05.05.2009 
Not promoted 
25. 
25 
Mr. Muhammad Shafi 
21.03.1977 
30.04.2009 
Not promoted 
26. 
26 
Mr. Fahimullah Khattak  
21.03.1977 
12.05.2009 
Not promoted 
27. 
27 
Ms. Nasreen Mahdi  
21.03.1977 
12.05.2009 
Not promoted 
28. 
28 
Agha Talat Pervaiz  
21.03.1977 
30.04.2009 
Not promoted 
29 
29 
Mr. Asif Usman Khan  
20.01.1954 
21.03.1977 
Promoted 
      g)  List of Officers of the Information Group BS-21 Officers who were  
promoted vis -à-vis who were not promoted to BS-22 Posts on or after 04.09.2009. 
 
  Sr.# 
Seniority 
Position 
in BS-21. 
Name of the Officer  
Date of Joining
Date of 
Notification of 
promotion to 
BS-21 
Remarks 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
18 
1. 
1 
Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman Malik  
30.12.1974 
04.03.2004 
Not promoted 
2. 
2 
Mr. A.S. Abbasy  
30.12.1974 
30.09.2005 
Not promoted 
3. 
3 
Mr. I.N. Abbasi  
26.05.1975 
27.05.2009 
Not promoted 
4 
4 
Mr. Mansoor Suhail  
21.03.1977 
15.05.2009 
Promoted  
 h)  List of Officers of the Foreign Service Group  BS-21 Officers who  
were promoted vis -à-vis who were not promoted to BS-22 Posts on or after 04.09.2009. 
 
  Sr.# 
Seniority 
Position 
in BS-21. 
Name of the Officer  
Date of Joining
Date of 
Notification of 
promotion to 
BS-21 
Remarks 
1. 
1 
Mr. Iftikhar H. Kazmi  
20.02.1976 
09.06.2008 
Not promoted 
2. 
2 
Mr. Ashraf Qureshi  
21.03.1977 
20.07.2004 
Not promoted 
3. 
3 
Ms. Humaira Hassan  
21.03.1977 
24.04.2007 
Not promoted 
4. 
4 
Ms. Raana Rahim  
08.03.1978 
24.04.2007 
Not promoted 
5. 
5 
Mr. Khurshid Anwar  
08.03.1978 
20.07.2004 
Not promoted 
6. 
6 
Mr. Tariq Azizuddin  
01.08.1975 
10.09.2005 
Not promoted 
7. 
7 
Mr. M. Khalid Khattak  
20.02.1976 
10.09.2005 
Promoted  
8. 
8 
Mr. Akhtar Tufail 
08.03.1978 
10.09.2005 
Not promoted 
9. 
9 
Mr. M. Haroon Shaukat  
08.03.1978 
24.04.2007 
Promoted 
10. 
10 
Mr. Zamir Akram  
02.07.1978 
10.09.2005 
Promoted 
11. 
11 
Mr. Muhammad Hafeez 
08.03.1978 
11.12.2007 
Not promoted 
12. 
12 
Mr. Masood Khalid  
29.03.1979 
24.04.2007 
Not promoted 
13. 
13 
Mr. Mian Gul Akbar Zaib  
29.03.1979 
24.04.2007 
Not promoted 
14. 
14 
Ms. Kausar Ahsan Iqbal  
20.02.1976 
09.06.2008 
Not promoted 
15. 
15 
Ms. Atiya Mahmood  
29.03.1979 
11.12.2007 
Not promoted 
16. 
16 
Mr. Sanaullah  
24.06.1979 
11.12.2007 
Not promoted 
17. 
17 
Ms. Fauzia Sana  
29.03.1979 
11.12.2007 
Not promoted 
18. 
18 
Mr. Jalil Abbas Jilani  
29.03.1979 
11.12.2007 
Promoted 
19. 
19 
Mr. Rizwanul Haq Mahmood  
29.03.1979 
11.12.2007 
Not promoted 
20. 
20 
Mr. M. Masood Khan  
05.04.1980 
- 
Promoted 
 
i)   List of Officers of the National Assembly Secretariat Group BS-21 Officers  
who were promoted vis -à-vis who were not promoted to BS-22 Posts on or after 04.09.2009. 
 
  Sr.# 
Seniority 
Position 
in BS-21. 
Name of the Officer  
Date of Joining
Date of 
Notification of 
promotion to 
BS-21 
Remarks 
1. 
1 
Mr. Moeen-ul-Islam Bokhari 
Ex-Cadre 
Not available 
Promoted  
 
16. 
 
It would also be advantageous to highlight civil servant’s structure 
since promulgation of Government of India Act, 1935 till the law framed under 
Article 240 of the Constitution. The Federal system of Government initially was 
introduced in Indo-Pak sub-Continent through Government of India Act, 1935 and 
the spirit of this Act was retained in the Constitutions of 1956 and 1973, thus our 
present Constitution is Federal in nature under which the areas of responsibilities 
of the Federation and the federating units have been precisely defined; they have 
to exercise their legislative and executive authorities within those limits. The 
concept of All Pakistan Services was introduced in 1935. Section 263 of the 
Government of India Act, 1935 provided that:- 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
19 
“If an agreement is made between the federation and one or 
more Provinces, or between two or more Provinces, for the 
maintenance or creation of a service common to the 
Federation and one or more Provinces or common to two or 
more Provinces, or for the maintenance or creation of the 
post, the function whereof are not restricted to the affairs of 
the Federation or one Province, the agreement may make 
provision that the Governor General or any Governor or any 
Public Service Commission, shall do in relation to that 
service or post anything which would under the provision of 
this chapter be done by the Governor or the Provincial Public 
Service Commission if the service or post was a service or 
post in connection with the affairs of one Province only”.  
A careful perusal of above Section reveals that the independence of the Provinces 
has not been curtailed by the Federal Government. Further more, it was left to the 
discretion of the Provinces to agree to such an arrangement or not, not only with 
the Federation but also between the Provinces and it was in pursuance of one such 
agreement that All Pakistan Services were created and came to be regulated under 
the CSP (Composition and Cadre) Rules 1954. According to these rules certain 
posts in connection with the affairs of the Provinces were to be filled by Members 
of All Pakistan Service and these posts were determined in the form of a Schedule 
to the rules. The legal effect of this arrangement was that 30% of the superior 
posts encadred for the CSP were reserved for the PCS and in this way the posts 
were created as a result of an agreement between the Governor General of 
Pakistan and the Governors of the Provinces. Thereafter Constitution of 1956 
under Articles 179 to 183 and subsequently Constitution of 1962 under Articles 
174 to 179 provided constitutional protection to civil services but the same was 
withdrawn first time at the time of framing of Constitution of 1973 in terms of 
Article 240 and it was provided that the terms and conditions of civil service shall 
be determined by an Act of the Parliament or the Provincial Assembly. As such, 
Civil Servants Act, 1973 was passed to regulate the service conditions of the 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
20 
Federal Government Employees. Similarly in accordance with the administrative 
reforms announced on 20th August, 1973, the classes were abolished and a grading 
system was introduced at all levels of administration, Federal as well as Provincial 
and the rules known as Change in Nomenclature and Abolition of Classes Rules 
were enforced by the Federal and Provincial Governments in 1974, separately. 
The effect of these changes was that at the time of re-organization of the CSP 
Cadre, all the posts were encadred for the DMG and the Secretariat Group, which 
are the successors to the CSP.   
17. 
 
The trichotomy of power delicately placed in the Constitution cannot 
be disturbed as it grants power to each organ to perform in its allotted sphere. The 
subject of appointments to service of the Federation and conditions of service has 
specifically been mentioned in Article 240 of the Constitution which reads as 
under: 
Article 240: -Subject to the constitution, the appointments to and the 
conditions of service of persons in the service of Pakistan shall be 
determined:- 
a) 
in the case of the services of the federation, posts in connection with 
the affairs of the federation and all Pakistan services by or under Act 
of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) ; and  
b) 
……………………………………. 
18. 
 
As per the command of above provision of the Constitution, CSA, 
1973 was promulgated. Its section 9 mainly deals with promotions up to BS-21, 
procedure whereof has been laid under Appointment, Promotion and Transfer 
Rules, 1973. It would not be out of context to note that presently rules are not 
available for promotion to the selection grade i.e. from BS-21 to BS-22; although 
in the year 1993, vide SRO. 1047 (I)/1993 dated 23rd October, 1993, such rules 
were framed but those were rescinded on 4th April, 1998. In absence of any rules 
for promotion to BS-22, reliance has to be placed on section 9 (2) clauses (a) & (b) 
of the CSA, 1973, according to which in case of selection post, selection has to be 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
21 
made on the basis of merit and in the case of non-selection post on the basis of 
seniority-cum-fitness. It may not be out of context to note that under sub section 
(3) of section 9, promotion to posts in BS-20 and 21 and equivalent shall be made 
on the recommendations of a Selection Board. Therefore, while examining the 
case under consideration no other criterion has to be taken into consideration 
except merit. As it is noted hereinbefore that there are no rules for promotion to 
selection post of grade-22 meaning thereby that competent authority may exercise 
discretion which has to be structured in view of the principles laid down in the 
Judge made Law by full application of mind. Reference at this stage has to be 
made to the case of Aman Ullah Khan and others V. The Federal Government of 
Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 1990 
SC 1092), relevant para therefrom reads as under:-  
“Wherever wide-worded powers conferring discretion exist, there 
remains always the need to structure the discretion and it has been 
pointed out in the Administrative Law Text by Kenneth Culp Davis 
(page 94) that the structuring of discretion only means regularizing 
it, organizing it, producing order in it so that decision will achieve 
the high quality of justice. The seven instruments that are most 
useful in the structuring of discretionary power are open plans, open 
policy statements, open rules, open findings, open reasons, open 
precedents and fair informal procedure. Somehow, in our context, 
the wide worded conferment of discretionary powers or reservation 
of discretion, without framing rules to regulate its exercise, has been 
taken to be an enhancement of the power and it gives that impression 
in the first instance but where the authorities fail to rationalise it and 
regulate it by Rules, or Policy statements or precedents, the Courts 
have to intervene more often, than is necessary, apart from the 
exercise of such power appearing arbitrary and capricious at times”.  
 
19. 
 
The above principles are being consistently reiterated in the cases of 
Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi V. Pakistan Mutual 
Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 SC 14), Director Food, 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
22 
N.W.F.P. and another V. Messrs Madina Flour & General Mills (Pvt) Ltd. & 18 
others (PLD 2001 SC 1), Chief Secretary Punjab and others V. Abdul Raoof Dasti 
(2006 SCMR 1876), Abdul Wahab and another V. Secretary, Government of 
Balochistan and another (2009 SCMR 1354) and Delhi Transport Corporation V. 
D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others (AIR 1991 SC 101). In the case of Abdul 
Wahab (ibid), this Court while dealing with the subject of structuring of discretion 
observed as follows:- 
“Discretionary power conferred on government should be exercised 
reasonably and subject to existence of essential conditions, required 
for exercise of such powers within the scope of law.  All judicial, 
quasi judicial and administrative authorities while exercising 
mandatory or discretionary jurisdiction must follow the rule of fair 
exercise of power in a reasonable manner and must ensure 
dispensation of justice in the spirit of law.  Seven instruments that 
are the most useful in structuring of discretionary power are open 
plans, open policy statement, open rules, open findings, open reason, 
open precedents and fair informal procedure.  Power to exercise 
discretion would not authorize such authorities to act arbitrarily, 
discriminately and mala fide.  They have to act without any ulterior 
motive”. 
 
20. 
 
The above principles of structuring of discretion actually has been 
derived from the concept of rule of law which, inter alia, emphasize that action 
must be based on fair, open and just consideration to decide the matters more 
particularly when such powers are to be exercised on discretion. In other words, 
the arbitrariness in any manner is to be avoided to ensure that the action based on 
discretion is fair and transparent. The Indian Supreme Court in the case of Delhi 
Transport Corporation (ibid), while examining a proposition of law, in view of 
facts of the case mentioned therein concerning removal of an employee under 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
23 
Regulation 9 (b), where opportunity of hearing was not to be provided before 
taking action, made the following observation:-  
“Any action taken without any modicum of reasonable procedure 
and prior opportunity always generates an unquenchable feeling that 
unfair treatment was meted out to the aggrieved employee.  To 
prevent miscarriage of justice or to arrest a nursing grievance that 
arbitrary, whimsical or capricious action was taken behind the back 
of an employee without opportunity, the law must provide a fair, just 
and reasonable procedure as is  exigible in a given circumstances as 
adumbrated  in proviso to Art.311(2) of the Constitution.  If an 
individual action is taken as per the procedure on its own facts its 
legality may be tested.  But it would be no justification to confer 
power with wide discretion on any authority without any procedure 
which would not meet the test of justness, fairness and 
reasonableness envisaged under Arts. 14 and 21 of the Constitution.  
In this context it is important to emphasise that the absence of 
arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which 
our whole constitutional system is based.  In a system governed by 
rule of law, discretion, when conferred upon executive authorities, 
must be confined within defined limits.  The rule of law form this 
point of view means that decisions should be made by the 
application of known principles and rules and, in general, such 
decisions should be predictable and the citizen should know where 
he is.  If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule 
it is unpredictable and such a decision is the antithesis of a decision 
taken in accordance with the rule of law.  (See Dicey – “Law of the 
Constitution” – 10th Edn., Introduction cx).  “Law has reached its 
finest moments”, stated Douglas, J. in United States v. Wunderlich, 
(1951) 342 US 98, “when it has freed man from the unlimited 
discretion of some ruler………Where discretion is absolute, man has 
always suffered”.  It is in this sense that the rule of law may be said 
to be the sworn enemy of caprice. Discretion, as Lord Mansfield 
stated it in classic terms in the case of John Wilkes “means should 
discretion be guided by law.  It must be governed by rule, not by 
humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful,” as followed in 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
24 
this Court in S.G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India, (1967) 2 SCR 703: 
(AIR 1967 SC 1427)”.        
 
21. 
 
Learned counsel for Federation emphasized that the competent 
authority (the Prime Minister of Pakistan) has exercised discretion justly and fairly 
following the recognized principles set out in the judgments relied upon by the 
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and he has been authorized 
in this behalf to make a statement before the Court that before issuing the 
notifications of the promotion of some of the officers, he had gone through their 
service record thoroughly and in this behalf their personal files remained under his 
consideration for months together and ultimately he decided their cases with due 
application of mind and as the decision so taken does not suffer from illegality, 
bias or malice or malafide as well as coram-non-judice, therefore, interference is 
not called for.  
22. 
 
However, we have failed to persuade ourselves to agree with the 
learned counsel for many reasons including; 
Firstly, as per Rule 15 (2) of the Rules of Business, it is mandatory that a 
case should be submitted to the Prime Minister for his orders based on self-
contained, concise and objective summary stating the relevant facts of the 
points for decision prepared on the same lines as those prescribed in these 
rules for a summary of the Establishment etc. Before us, the Secretary, 
Establishment pointed out that there is no practice prevailing for the last 
about 60 years for forwarding the cases of promotion from BS-21 to BS-22 
and subject to the availability of the vacancies the Prime Minister calls for 
the files for promoting officers and notification is issued of his/their 
promotion on receipt of directions from the Prime Minister by the 
Establishment Division and in the instant case, too, the past practice was 
followed; to say, unhesitatingly that mandate of relevant rules was ignored.  
Conversely speaking, there is admitted non-adherence to the Rules of 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
25 
Business. The Secretary, Establishment sent files without any forwarding 
letter and the cases of all the officers totaling 267 were not sent in terms of 
aforesaid Rules of Business. 
In the cases of Zahid Akhtar v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, 
Local Government and Rural Development, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 
1995 SC 530), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Planning & 
Development Division, Islamabad v. Muhammad Akram & others (1995 
SCMR 1647) & Aman Ullah Khan and others v. The Federal Government 
of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others 
(PLD 1990 SC 1092), it has been  held that due weight is required to be 
given to the Rules of Business which have got constitutional sanction 
whereas, in the instant case, the mandate of law has uncondonably been 
violated. It may be stated that adopting such arbitrary procedure, not only 
in-justice has been caused to officers who are otherwise senior and also 
have better case on merit as is evident from what follows in next paras but 
they have been deprived because there was nothing as the circumstances 
reflect, in black and white before the competent authority.  This fact brings 
the case in the area where the discretion so exercised by the competent 
authority cannot be said to be in consonance with the well known principle 
of fair play as the cases of the officers who were not promoted their files 
were not before him, along with self-contained note by the Secretary 
Establishment in terms of the aforesaid Rules of Business.  
Secondly; to ensure justice and openness in view of rule of law it becomes 
obligatory upon the competent authority to decide each case on merit taking 
into consideration the service record of the officers BS-21 who were 
eligible for promotion to BS-22. This aspect of the matter requires 
application of mind based on consideration and determination of merit in 
the light of the material explicitly showing as to why the officers who have 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
26 
been left out were not found to be competent/below merit in comparison to 
those promoted to BS-22. Such consideration of the case and determination 
of merit for parity of treatment becomes all the more necessary and in 
absence of considering the candidature of the left out officers it would 
alone be tantamount to pick and choose essentially leading us to hold that 
there was no transparency in the exercise of discretion by the competent 
authority. Reference in this behalf can be made to the cases of Aman Ullah 
Khan (ibid), Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi (ibid) 
and Abu Bakar Siddique (ibid). For the sake of convenience, relevant para 
from the last mentioned judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 
“It is fundamental principle that an authority enjoying the 
discretionary powers, exercises the same without any 
guideline but at the same time such authority must not 
exercise the discretion in an arbitrary and capricious manner.  
It may not be obligatory for the concerned authority to 
exercise the discretion in a particular manner but exercise of 
such power in an unreasonable manner is not proper and in 
such a case the order passed in discretionary jurisdiction is 
not immune from judicial review of the superior courts.  It is, 
however, only in exceptional circumstances in which a power 
is conferred on a person by saying that he may do a certain 
thing in his discretion but from the indication of the relevant 
provisions and the nature of the duty to be done, it appears 
that exercise of power is obligatory.  This is an accepted 
principle of law that in a case in which the statute authorizes a 
person for exercise of discretion to advance the cause of 
justice, the power is not merely optional but it is the duty of 
such person to act in the manner it is intended”. 
 
Thirdly; without going deep into the merits of the case of the petitioners 
and other left out officers, from the relevant facts concerning their seniority 
position, date of promotion in grade-21 etc, on a cursory glance one can 
infer that discretion has also not been exercised reasonably in ignoring their 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
27 
cases. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned counsel while explaining the 
case of such officers emphasized that in no manner it could be said that 
these officers had merit with legitimacy for their promotion to grade-22. 
According to him, most of them were in grade-21 much before some of the 
promotees who succeeded in getting promotion in grade-21 in the year 
2008-09 but were promoted in the same year to grade-22. A particular 
reference in this behalf was made to the officers, namely, Mr. Kamran 
Lashari, Mr. Sohail Ahmed, Mr. M. Sami Saeed, Mr. Imtiaz Inayat Elahi, 
Mr. Javed Mehmood, Mr. Ghulam Ali Shah, Mr. Ahmed Bakhsh Lehri and 
Mrs. Nargis Sethi  whose names appear at serial Nos.29, 43, 44, 54, 55, 61, 
62 & 63 respectively in the seniority list of the DMG occupational group. 
Whereas the officers namely, Mr. Shahid Hussain Raja, Mr. Shaukat Hayat 
Durrani, Capt. (R) Akhtar Munir, Syed Muhammad Hamid, Mrs. 
Farkhanda Waseem Afzal, Mr. Hassan Waseem Afzal, Mr. Muhammad 
Javed Malik, Mr. Hafeez-ur-Rehman and Mr. Saeed Ahmed Khan etc. of 
the same occupational group are shown  in seniority list at serial Nos.4, 5, 
9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, and were the officers promoted in BS-21 much 
before them but without assigning any reason they were not considered for 
promotion. Mr. Akram Sheikh, Sr. ASC stated and so we reiterate the 
principle that promotion is not a right but an officer deserves that his case 
should be considered for promotion in accordance with law. Had the 
competent authority considered their cases and informed the reasons for not 
promoting them probably they would have not grieved to complain the non-
adherence to the rule of law and their suffering on that count. At this 
juncture, it may be stated that Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada learned counsel 
for Federation, though, emphasized that “there is no question of 
supersession because the officers who are working in BS-21 and have not 
been promoted to BS-22 would continue to be eligible for promotion 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
28 
(emphasis provided), this argument goes in favour of the officers who have 
not been promoted because there is no question mark on their eligibility and 
fitness and since there is no reason available on record to deprive them of 
their deserved position, contention of Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh 
learned counsel and others that discretion has not been exercised 
reasonably, so also the principles set out to structure the discretion in the 
judgments cited hereinabove, has not been followed rendering the whole 
exercise in pursuance of which the aggrieved petitioners have been 
deprived of the promotion is not sustainable, seems to be tenable.  In 
addition to it, once the argument of learned counsel for the federation in 
respect of non-supersession of the left out BS-21 officers is accepted then 
we feel no difficulty in concluding that selection on merit would take place 
after assessment of all relevant consideration including competence and 
good service record. It is correct that the interpretation of the word ‘merit’ 
includes eligibility as well as academic qualifications [Miss Abida 
Shabqadar  v.  Selection Committee  (1989 SCMR 1585)]. It is equally 
important to highlight another important principle that when promotion is 
to be made to a selection post it needs to be purely on merit. However, in 
case there is a tie qua meritorious past record, credibility and confidence 
among the officers then seniority would play its role [State of West Bengal  
v.  Manas Kumar Chakrabarti (AIR 2003 SC 524)]. The Federation in 
parawise comments or through its learned counsel had not pointed out that 
the affectee officers were lacking above criteria in any manner in 
comparison to the promoted officers, therefore, their cases were not 
considered for promotion to BS-22. Actually, in the instant case, the 
difficulty seems to have arisen on account of the fact that the Establishment 
Division did not apprise the competent authority and in that all the cases for 
promotion from BS-21 to BS-22 were not submitted in consonance with the 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
29 
provisions of relevant Rules of Business highlighting their service record, 
academic qualification etc.  We feel that the competent authority holding an 
exalted office needed to be assisted properly by the concerned Secretary 
explaining the concerned case of each of the officer and then leaving to its 
discretion to exercise on the principles of rule of law, which does not seem 
to have been done.   
Having accepted that the left out officers were eligible for 
promotion, yet not promoted and juniors promoted, it would amount to 
glaring violation of the command of Article 4 of the Constitution according 
to which it is an inalienable right of individual to be dealt with in 
accordance with law. When we make reference of the expression of the 
‘Law’ we mean section 9 sub-section 2 clauses (a) and (b) of the CSA, 
1973 and in absence of rules for promotion from BS-21 to BS-22, the word 
‘merit’ has to apply in the light of principles highlighted hereinabove and 
following them, no room is left to make distinction between the officers 
who have been promoted and not promoted though eligible.  Even 
accepting, for the sake of arguments, that the officers who were promoted 
to BS-22, were enjoying, save seniority, the same position as that of the left 
out, we fail to understand as to why they were not considered for promotion 
particularly, when they happened to be senior to them. In such situation the 
principle noted hereinabove, that when the officers are considered for 
promotion having equal merit and eligibility, then the seniority would play 
a decisive role and ought to have been adhered to, shall prevail. In this case 
that principle, factually, has not been followed, rather it would appear that 
the cases of both types of officers have not been measured in the same scale 
to follow the dictates of Article 4 of the Constitution, the rule of law as well 
as the due process of law. 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
30 
  
We are also conscious of the provision of Article 25 of the 
Constitution which guarantees equality of citizens. However, denying such 
protection in peculiar circumstances of the case on basis of reasonable 
classification founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or 
things that are grouped together from those who have been left out.  The 
differentia, however, must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved 
by such classification [Dr. Mobashir Hassan V. Federation of Pakistan and others 
(PLD 2010 SC 265)].  In the instant matter, looking in view of the reply filed by 
the Establishment Division and the argument advanced by the learned counsel on 
behalf of Federation, no attempt at all has been made to bring the cases of 
promoted officers under any reasonable classification. Relevant principles relating 
thereto have been highlighted hereinbefore.  
23. 
 
At this juncture, it would not be out of context to make reference to 
the contention raised by learned Attorney General for Pakistan who placing 
reliance on section 9 (2) of CSA, 1973, emphasized that the eligibility for the 
purpose of promotion is not the sole consideration as thereafter merit will come, 
therefore, according to him, all the persons are eligible and their promotion is to be 
based on merit amongst themselves. He placed reliance on Muhammad Yousaf v. 
Abdul Rashid (1996 SCMR 1297). We have no cavil with the proposition 
discussed therein but on posing a question to ourselves i.e. whether the cited 
judgment confers arbitrary powers upon the competent authority to side track the 
principle of structured discretion, rule of law, due process of law, equality before 
law and the criteria highlighted in the Judge made Law noted hereinabove and 
finding that the provisions of Article 4 and 25 of the Constitution have not been 
adhered to, surely, we could not get affirmative answer to persuade ourselves that 
fate of the officers be left entirely to the discretion of the competent authority. 
Thus the argument so advanced by the learned Attorney General could be 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
31 
acceptable only if it comes up to the well-established principles for exercising the 
discretion highlighted in the judgments noted hereinabove.  
24. 
 
Learned Attorney General has also relied upon Ghuman Singh v. 
State of Rajasthan {(1971) 2 SCC 452}, State of West Bengal v. Manas Kumar 
Chakrabarti (AIR 2003 SC 524) and Union of India and others v. Lt. Gen. 
Rajendra Singh Kadyan and another {(2000) 6 SCC 698}. These judgments need 
not be discussed in view of the discussion hereinbefore as the Indian Supreme 
Court has also not favoured the exercise of discretionary powers without following 
the seven instruments envisaged in various judgments of this Court  
25. 
 
We have seen the lists relating to the seniority etc. of both the 
officers (promoted and non promoted) placed before us by the Establishment 
Division and have also heard the learned counsel for parties as well as  promoted 
officers, who appeared in person and find ourselves in agreement with Mr. Abdul 
Hafeez Pirzada, learned counsel appearing for the Federation that the affectee 
officers have not been superseded not finding anything on record that they were 
ineligible, we see no reason as to why they, majority of whom are seniors as per 
the seniority list of their occupational groups, were not promoted. With due 
deference to the competent authority, we are constrained to note that proper 
assistance which was mandatory to be provided to it by the Establishment Division 
under the Rules of Business, to enable it to exercise discretion fairly and justly, 
has not been rendered. Record produced before us reflects that two officers, 
namely,  Mr. Jaweed Akhtar and Mr. Moeen-ul-Islam Bokhari from Secretariat 
Group & National Assembly Secretariat Group, respectively, were promoted. Of 
these two promoted officer, Mr. Jaweed Akhtar, was working in NLC and was 
inducted on 7.11.2009 in Secretariat Group, on the same day was promoted to  
BS-21 and then awarded promotion in BS-22 considering him to be an officer of 
Secretariat Group and almost same was the position of Mr. Moeen-ul-Islam 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
32 
Bokhari. What could else be the example of non-application of mind and non-
adherence to the rule as well as the due process of law. 
26. 
 
Learned Attorney General and learned counsel for the Federation 
also emphasized that majority of officers of BS-21 who now have been promoted 
to BS-22 were holding acting charge of different divisions as Secretaries, etc. and 
competent authority had an opportunity to watch their performance, therefore, it 
had rightly considered them for promotion as against the left out officers whose 
performance, though not said to be blemished, could not be watched. We are not 
impressed with these arguments for, legally speaking, appointment on acting 
charge basis does not confer any vested right for regular promotion, as is evident 
from Rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) 
Rules, 1973 reproduced below:- 
“8-B (1) Where the appointing authority considers it to be in the 
public interest to fill a post reserved under the rules for departmental 
promotion and the most senior civil servant belonging to the cadre or 
service concerned who is otherwise eligible for promotion does not 
possess the specified length of service the authority may appoint him 
to that post on acting charge basis. 
(2) *[Omitted]. 
(3) In the case of a post in basic pay scales 17 to 22 and equivalent, 
reserved under the rules to be filled by initial appointment, where the 
appointing authority is satisfied that no suitable officer drawing pay 
in basic pay scale in which the post exists is available in that 
category to fill the post and it is expedient to fill the post, it may 
appoint to that post on acting charge basis the most senior officer 
otherwise eligible for promotion in the organization, cadre or 
service, as the case may be, in excess of the promotion quota. 
(4) Acting charge appointment shall be made against posts which are 
likely to fall vacant for a period of six months or more. Against 
vacancies occurring for less than six months, current charge 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
33 
appointment may be made according to the orders issued from time 
to time.  
 
(5) Appointment on acting charge basis shall be made on the 
recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee or the 
Central Selection Board, as the case may be, save in the case of post 
in basic pay scale 22 and equivalent.  
(6) Acting charge appointment shall not amount to appointment by 
promotion on regular basis for any purpose including seniority. 
 
(7) Acting charge appointment shall not confer any vested right for 
regular promotion to the post held on acting charge basis.” 
A careful perusal of the above rule reflects that in case where the appointing 
authority is satisfied that no suitable officer is available to fill the post and it is 
expedient to fill the same, it may appoint to that post on acting charge basis the 
most senior officer otherwise eligible for promotion in the cadre or service as the 
case may be. In the instant case, the officers who were holding the post on acting 
charge basis were not all senior to those of affectee officers and moreover it is 
quite evident that even in their cases, holding the acting charge under whatever 
circumstances, shall not confer any vested right for regular promotion.  
27. 
 
It was further contended by the learned Attorney General that Chief 
Executive/competent authority was to select his team with the object in view to 
ensure the good governance in the country. Suffice to observe as is pointed out 
hereinabove, as well, that posting a junior officer to hold the charge of a senior 
post, ignoring seniors who are eligible for promotion, does not advance the object 
of achieving good governance because the rules framed on the subject, noted 
hereinabove, are not redundant in any manner, therefore, same need to be 
respected and followed accordingly. It is a settled principle of law that object of 
good governance cannot be achieved by exercising discretionary powers 
unreasonably or arbitrarily and without application of mind but objective can be 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
34 
achieved by following the rules of justness, fairness and openness in consonance 
with the command of the Constitution enshrined in different articles including 
Articles 4 and 25. Once it is accepted that the Constitution is the supreme law of 
the country, no room is left to allow any authority to make departure from any of 
its provisions or the law and the rules made thereunder. By virtue of Articles 4 and 
5 (2) of the Constitution, even the Chief Executive of the country is bound to obey 
the command of the Constitution and to act in accordance with law and decide the 
issues after application of mind with reasons as per law laid down by this Court in 
various pronouncements [Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment 
Division v. Tariq Pirzada (1999 SCMR 2744)]. It is also a settled law that even 
Chief Executive of the country is not above the Constitution [Ch. Zahur Ilahi  v. 
Mr. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (PLD 1975 SC 383)]. It is the duty and obligation of the 
competent authority to consider the merit of all the eligible candidates while 
putting them in juxta position to find out the meritorious amongst them otherwise 
one of the organs of the State i.e. Executive could not survive as an independent 
organ which is the command of the Constitution. Expression ‘merit’ includes 
limitations prescribed under the law. Discretion is to be exercised according to 
rational reasons which means that; (a) there be finding of primary facts based on 
good evidence; and (b) decisions about facts be made for reasons which serve the 
purposes of statute in an intelligible and reasonable manner. Actions which do not 
meet these threshold requirements are considered arbitrary and misuse of power 
[Director Food, NWFP v. M/s Madina Flour and General Mills (Pvt) Ltd. (PLD 
2001 SC 1)]. Equally, discretionary power conferred on Government should be 
exercised reasonably subject to existence of essential conditions, required for 
exercise of such power within the scope of law. All judicial, quasi judicial and 
administrative authorities must exercise power in reasonable manner and also must 
ensure justice as per spirit of law and seven instruments which have already been 
referred to above regarding exercise of discretion. The obligation to act fairly on 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
35 
the part of the administrative authority has been evolved to ensure the rule of law 
and to prevent failure of justice [Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujrat 
{1997 (7) SCC 622}].  
28. 
 
We may observe here that it is not the case of few individuals who 
have been promoted or left out, the questions for consideration raised in this case 
are of far-reaching effect. Essentially, under the trichotomy of the powers, the 
Executive (Bureaucracy) has to play the most important role for well being of 
general public. Although, they are not representing any class of masses but whole 
structure of the government depends upon the efficient and competent officers 
who matter in making policies which are ultimately approved by the Ministers etc. 
and if for this purpose the selection of officers is made following the principle to 
determine the merit are not employed, the running of government on the basis of 
good policies would ultimately affect the general public as in this matter it is no 
body’s case that the officers who have been left out are not eligible for promotion 
to BS-22.  Thus they stand at par with those who have been promoted and 
depriving them to enjoy the higher status of a civil servant would indirectly affect 
smooth functioning of the government on account of despondency developed 
amongst the officers, who always have stood by law and worked hard but 
ultimately are deprived of their legitimate right of promotion.  
29. 
 
Needless to observe that when we talk about the public interest and 
the welfare of the State, we definitely have in our minds the concept of rule of law 
as well as access to justice to all as is enshrined in our Constitution.  
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 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 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
36 
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 law as well as the judgments on the subject, the 
competent and 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 
polices 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.   
31. 
 
It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Federation 
that the officers who have been promoted to BS-22 by the competent authority had 
been promoted following the provisions of Articles 27 (1), 34 and 37 (F) of the 
Constitution as an effort has been made to maintain gender balance. It may be 
noted that according to service structure of different occupational groups, no 
concession can be extended to any officer in respect of any appointment on the 
ground only for race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth. Thus Articles 
27, 34 and 37 (f) of the Constitution have no application to the facts and 
circumstances of the instant case. According to clause (2) of the Article 25 of the 
Constitution, there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex alone, thus 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
37 
considering an officer on the basis of sex shall be violation of the mandate of the 
Constitution.    
32. 
 
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada learned counsel for the Federation was 
also of the opinion that reference of rules on the subject will not render any action 
otherwise lawfully taken to be unlawful because in section 25 of CSA, 1973, law 
giver has used the word ‘necessary’ or ‘expedient’ for carrying out the purpose of 
this Act are not mandatory but directory in nature. There is no need to go into this 
discussion because we have already emphasized that in absence of the rules, the 
competent authority had a legal commitment to exercise discretion while making 
the selection of the officers on merit in BS-22 following the settled principles 
highlighted in the Judge made Law, discussed in detail hereinabove. At the cost of 
repetition, it is to be noted that the question in issue came up under consideration 
in Sajjad Javed Ahmed Bhatti  v. Secretary, Establishment Division [2009 PLC 
(C.S.) 981] wherein respondents Federation of Pakistan, etc. were well advised to 
prescribe guidelines for promotion to BS-22 and to facilitate the exercise of 
discretionary powers fairly, judiciously without favour and discrimination.  The 
said case was decided on 14-1-2007 but, regretfully said, the Federation neither 
filed any petition there-against before this Court nor framed rules in terms of the 
directions therein.  
33. 
 
As it has been observed, hereinabove, that on 23rd October, 1993, 
vide SRO. 1047 (I)/1993 in respect of promotion to BS-22 Rules were framed, but, 
subsequently the same were rescinded in the year, 1998. Although, these rules are 
no more in the statute books but the competent authority/Chief Executive while 
considering the promotions could have used them as guidelines to ensure just and 
fair and non-discriminatory treatment to the officers of BS-21 who had legitimate 
expectancy to be promoted to BS-22 as there is no question mark on their 
eligibility and it is also the case of the Federation itself that non promotion would 
not be tantamount to supersede them. However, in view of the statement of Mr. 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
38 
Abdul Hafeez Pirzada learned counsel for the Federation, referred to hereinabove 
regarding the framing of rules with retrospective effect, we observe that it would 
be in all fairness and to streamline the procedure of promotion to the selection 
grade from BS-21 to BS-22 and also to avoid unjustness, arbitrariness etc. the 
rules shall be framed by the competent authority as early as could be possible.  
34. 
 
Before parting with the judgment, we may observe that good 
governance is largely dependent upon the upright, honest and strong bureaucracy 
particularly in written Constitution wherein important role of implementation has 
been assigned to the bureaucracy.  Civil service is the back bone of our 
administration.  The purity of administration to a large extent depends upon the 
purity of the services.  Such purity can be obtained only if the promotions are 
made on merit in accordance with law and Constitution, without favouritism or 
nepotism. It is a time tested recognized fact that institution is destroyed if 
promotions/appointments are made in violation of law.  It will, in the ultimate 
result, paralyze automatically. The manner in which the instant promotions in the 
Civil Services have been made, may tend to adversely affect the existence of this 
organ. Honesty, efficiency and incorruptibility are the sterling qualities in all fields 
of life including the Administration and Services.  These criteria ought to have 
been followed in the instant case.  Fifty-four persons were promoted in complete 
disregard of the law causing anger, anguish, acrimony, dissatisfaction and 
diffidence in ranks of services which is likely to destroy the service structure. No 
doubt petitioners/affectee officers had no right to be promoted yet in accordance 
with section 9 of the CSA, 1973, they were, at least, entitled to be considered for 
promotion. The right contemplated under section 9 supra is neither illusionary nor 
a perfunctory ritual and withholding of promotion of an officer is a major penalty 
in accordance with the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1973, 
therefore, consideration of an officer for promotion is to be based not only on the 
relevant law and the rules but also to be based on some tangible material relating 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
39 
to merit and eligibility which can be lawfully taken note of. According to Article 4 
of the Constitution the word “law” is of wider import and in itself mandatorily cast 
the duty upon every public functionary to act in the matter justly, fairly and 
without arbitrariness.   
35. 
 
For the foregoing reasons: 
(a) 
Listed petitions are accepted as a consequence whereof, notifications 
No.41/317/2009-E-I, 
41/343/2009-E-I, 
41/321/2009/E-I, 
41/318/2009/E-I, 41/319/2009/E-I, 41/344/2009/E-I, 41/341/2009/E-
I, 41/320/2009/E-I, 41/345/2009/E-I, 41/346/2009/E-I, PF(190)E-
5/DMG, 
41/328/2009/E-I, 
41/329/2009/E-I, 
41/322/2009/E-I, 
41/330/2009/E-I, 
41/331/2009/E-I, 
PF(208)E-5/DMG, 
41/332/2009/E-I, 
PF(218)E-5/DMG, 
PF(229)E-5/DMG, 
41/334/2009/E-I, 
PF(224)E-5/DMG, 
41/336/2009/E-I, 
41/335/2009/E-I, PF(245)E-5/DMG, 41/339/2009/E-I, PF(257)E-
5/DMG, PF(262)E-5/DMG, 41/338/2009/E-I, 41/340/2009/E-I,  
21/1/2009-E-I, 
12(178)/80-E.3(Police), 
12(285)/80-E.3(Police), 
12(242)/80-E.3(Police), 
12(251)/80-E.3(Police), 
12(267)/80-
E.3(Police), 
12(279)/80-E.3(Police), 
12(285)/80-E.3(Police), 
12(288)/80-E.3(Police), 12(309)/80-E.3(Police), 41/342/2009/E-I,  
44/1/2009-E-I, 41/325/2009/E-I, 41/326/2009/E-I, 41/323/2009/E-I, 
41/327/2009/E-I, 41/324/2009/E-I dated 4th September, 2009 and 
Notification No. PF(227)/E-5(DMG) dated 10th September, 2009 are 
hereby set-aside and declared to be of no legal consequences.  
(b) 
The Chief Executive/competent authority may consider the cases of 
all the officers holding the posts of BS-21 afresh in view of the 
observations, made hereinabove. 
(c) 
The officers who have been promoted to BS-22 in pursuance of 
above referred notifications, which now have been declared of no 
H.R.C. No. 8340-G/2009 
40 
legal effect, shall not be entitled for the benefit, perks and privileges, 
if any.    
(d) 
It would be appreciated that to ensure fairness and justness, the 
Rules rescinded on 4th April, 1998 are re-enacted accordingly.   
(e) 
Parties are left to bear their own costs.   
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
               Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Judge 
 
Islamabad 
Announced on 28-04-2010 
 
 
 
 
 
J.  
 
“A.Rehman: 
                            APPROVED FOR REPORTING.