ISLAMABAD, April 20: Justice Noorul Haq N. Qureshi of Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Friday gave final opportunity to more than 100 promoted bureaucrats of different groups to submit their reply by second week of May in petitions filed by about 50 officers who feel aggrieved at their promotion.

The bureaucrats of district management, accounts, customs, inland revenue, income tax and other occupational groups had been promoted to BPS 21 during the last couple of years.

The petitioners belonging to different occupational groups through their counsels informed the court that in their promotion, they had been superseded as they were up the seniority ladder and eligible for promotion.

The petitioners said despite service career expanding over 33 years with no adverse remarks in their annual confidential reports (ACR) they were ignored in the promotion.

They alleged that by granting less marks to them the Central Selection Board (CSB) had given undue benefit to some of the bureaucrats.

Abdul Rahim Bhatti, one of the counsels of the petitioners, told the court that his clients were eligible for promotion to BPS-21 but were unfortunately ignored by the CSB.

He said the undue favour to the officers could be gauged from the fact that some officers had even secured less marks but they were given preferential treatment and were promoted to BPS-21.

He maintained that some of the petitioners had even earned two highest Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) for the years 2009 and 2010 adding that the PERs for the year 2011, which was available in October 2011 when the meeting of the CSB took place, had not been taken into consideration due to mala fide intention.

The respondents have violated the provisions of law and the Promotion Policy and thereby violated Article 4 of the Constitution, he added.

He pointed out that as per guidelines for promotion contained in Estacode, the Departmental Promotion Committee/Central Selection Board should consider the cases of eligible Civil Servants in order of seniority and either, recommend a civil servant for promotion to next higher post; or recommend a civil servant for supersession; or defer consideration of a civil servants promotion provided that this step will be taken only if; the confidential report is incomplete.

The cases of the petitioners have not been recommended for promotion to Grade-21 despite the fact that neither the disciplinary nor departmental proceeding was pending against them nor such record supported by tangible material for the reprehensive act/ reputation of the petitioner was available.The petitioners fulfilling the criteria for promotion to BS-21 had legitimate expectation of being promoted but the promotion was denied against the principles of equity, justice and fair play, he said and added, the respondents, Establishment Division and the Central Selection Board, tried to hedge around the law as laid down by the superior courts.

Advocate Bhatti asserted the petitioners were suffering for no fault of their own and left at the mercy of prejudices and sweet will of the respondents, he added.

The case of the petitioners was, in fact, not considered objectively keeping in view the provisions of Civil Servants Act, provisions of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer Rules), 1973 and the promotion policy on the subject which resulted into supersession and caused miscarriage of justice, said Bhatti.

Rehanuddin Khan, the standing counsel for the federal government on the other hand defended the promotions. He told the court that while giving them promotion to the next grade their seniority, length of service, professional training, and PERs were given due considerations. He, however, suggested the court for issuing notices to the promoted officers or private respondents for knowing their point of views.

Advocate Hafiz S. A. Rehman representing the promoted officers of income tax group told the court that so far their views on the petitions had not been heard and requested the court to give them another opportunity.

Mian Abdul Rauf, counsel for the promoted officers of DMG and other occupational groups, told the court that some of the officers promoted through CSB in 2010 and 2011 had been retired from service.

It may be pertinent to mention that IHC Justice Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui in February 2012 had already granted the relief to some income tax and customs officers on identical petitions.