KARACHI, April 6: The Sindh High Court issued directions to the Central Selection Board (CSB) on Thursday to streamline the process of promotion of civil servants.
Extending relief to three grade 20 officers of the income tax group superseded for promotion to grade 21, a division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Ali Sain Dino Metlo, observed that the recommendations of the CSB were not always consistent or in accordance with the required objective standards. The bench accordingly issued the following directions:
1. DATA CORRECTNESS: In the first instance, any observation made by the CSB regarding the past conduct or performance of an officer must be based on authentic and verifiable information. To describe an officer’s performance as ‘lacklustre’ in the face of nine ‘very good’ and two ‘good’ reports and in the absence of a single adverse or even average report defies all norms of objectivity and could vitiate the entire exercise.
2. SUPERSESSION: It has been noted that the previous supersession of an officer is treated as a ground for subsequent supersession despite the fact it is repeatedly asserted that posts in grade 21 are selection posts and promotions are to be made on the basis of comparative excellence. In this context, a distinction ought to be kept in view between posts where promotion is made on seniority-cum-fitness basis and selection posts. Indeed, in the former case the supersession of a senior officer takes place only when he is found unfit for promotion and such finding of unfitness by the competent authority needs to be given weight in selection posts. However, an officer may eminently be suitable for promotion but is superseded merely because a junior might be found to be comparatively more meritorious. In such cases, therefore, the previous supersession must be completely ruled out of consideration and his merit must be ascertained afresh in comparison to other eligible officers.
3. ELIGIBILITY THRESHOLD: There seems to be some confusion whether the minimum 75 marks requirement is a question relating to eligibility or fitness of a civil servant to be promoted. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that for the purpose of the Civil Servants Act, there is a marked distinction between the concept of eligibility and fitness. As held in Mohammad Anis vs Abdul Haseeb (PLD 1994 SC 539), eligibility involves the legal qualification of a person to be appointed or promoted whereas fitness relates to the suitability for such appointment. The question of eligibility has been held to be justiciable before a service tribunal as against that of fitness. The CSB may consider a person unfit for promotion on account of his low quantified score or even choose not to examine other factors in the case of an officer scoring below a prescribed minimum but it would not be quite correct to describe it as an eligibility threshold. Primarily, it is an important factor relating to the fitness of a person to be promoted.
4. OVERALL ASSESSMENT: The CSB has mainly been considering the quantified score worked out on the basis of the nebulous criterion ‘overall assessment’ with no reference to his quality and work output and integrity. Indeed, it is common knowledge that integrity and quality and output of work are crucial factors if the performance evaluation of a civil servant and other factors, if any, could only have secondary effect. It is not understandable how petitioner M. Matiur Rehman was found to possess less than 75 marks under ‘overall assessment’ whereas in terms of quality and output of work he obtained more than 85 per cent and in terms of integrity more than 90 marks. Obviously, some altogether extraneous factors were taken into consideration. Para 6 (e) of the ‘guidelines’ for CSB, as reproduced on page 233 of the 2002-03 edition of the Estacode, explicitly requires that marks calculated in respect of ‘quality and output of work’ shall be crucial in determining the comparative merit of an officer.
5. PASC TRAINING: The Pakistan Administrative Staff College training may be important before promotion as a general rule but it cannot be overlooked that officers above the age of 56 years have been exempted from such training and high performance in such courses cannot be considered to weigh over other factors, including an officer’s overall performance of work during his career.
At the same time, when the CSB guidelines themselves stipulate that an officer’s attendance of such course will be treated as a regular posting and an annual confidential report (ACR) would be recorded in respect of his performance, the evaluation can only be treated as one ACR for the purpose of quantification and no more. Petitioner M. Matiur Rehman’s supersession was approved by the Establishment Division on the ground of his minus rating at the staff college irrespective of all other considerations, which was entirely unwarranted.
Petitioner Rehman, whose promotion had been held up since 2001 despite a high court order, earlier informed the bench that he was given a cash award on June 30, 2001, for his meritorious services and was declared unfit for promotion only five days later, that is, on July 5, 2001. The high court had asked the CSB to reconsider his case and reassess his performance for promotion but the board failed to comply with the order. The division bench asked the CSB to comply with the previous order within two months.
The CSB was also asked on Thursday to reconvene its meeting and decide afresh the cases of two other petitioner officers serving in grade 20 within two months, failing which the functionaries concerned would be liable to contempt proceedings.
