LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has struck down the supersession of two senior bureaucrats, observing that the Central Selection Board (CSB) cannot rely on gossip to deny promotions.

Justice Khalid Ishaq issued a detailed verdict, allowing two connected constitutional petitions filed by retired Capt Muhammad Usman and Aamir Aqiq Khan.

Both officers had challenged their supersession, which was communicated to them through letters on Aug 7, 2025.

The central point of the matter focused on the 30pc marks allocated to the CSB under the Civil Servants Promotion Rules, 2019, while the remaining 70pc marks are quantified from an officer’s service record.

Orders Centre to reconsider them for promotion in fair manner

In both cases, the petitioners possessed unblemished career records with ‘outstanding’ or ‘very good’ performance evaluation reports (PERs).

However, the CSB awarded them exceptionally low marks (9 and 8 out of 30, respectively), causing them to fall short of the required threshold for promotion to BPS-21 and BPS-20, respectively.

According to petitioners’ lawyers, the board unlawfully recommended supersession by leveling generalised remarks such as ‘questionable integrity’, ‘harsh behavior,’ ‘alleged compromised financial integrity’ and ‘use of political connections’.

Focusing on how the selection board exercised its power, Justice Ishaq observed that the criteria laid down in the Promotion Rules, 2019, are structured precisely to prevent arbitrary decisions.

The judge held that the assessment categories — even those dealing with personal attributes like personality profile, conduct and integrity — do not provide a carte blanche (full freedom) to the CSB. He maintained that the board’s discretion is strictly dependent upon official dossiers and documentary evidence.

“There is absolutely no room for hearsay, rumours, generalisation or gossip about an officer under consideration for promotion,” the judge added.

Citing a maxim nemo repente fuit turpissimus (no one becomes dishonest all of a sudden), the judge maintained that if board members choose to disagree with years of positive remarks in an officer’s annual reports, they must explicitly record concrete reasons supported by tangible material.

The judge highlighted that during the proceedings, the federal government’s law officer was given opportunities to produce any underlying material or evidence that could justify the serious allegations leveled against the officers. However, the judge said, the only material placed before the court in a sealed envelope was the standard personal profiles and evaluation reports, which contained no adverse remarks.

Justice Ishaq noted that the calculation of the marks clearly showed an irrelevant and baseless deduction across categories simply to ensure the petitioners failed to meet the required passing threshold.

The judge said using unstructured discretion in such a manner severely damages an officer’s professional standing and personal life.

Rejecting the government’s argument against the maintainability of the petitions, the judge ruled that while a civil servant cannot claim promotion as a vested right, they have a fundamental right to be considered for it in a fair, transparent, and lawful manner.

The judge observed that good governance cannot be achieved by discretionary powers exercised in an arbitrary manner and without proper application of mind.

Justice Ishaq set aside the impugned letters of supersession and directed the federation to reconsider both bureaucrats for promotion in an impartial, fair and lawful manner.

Published in Dawn, June 28th, 2026