ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has declared invalid the recommendations of the 29th meeting of the High Power Selection Board, where juniors were recommended for promotion from Grade 21 to Grade 22 while overlooking senior officers.
In a detailed 63-page judgment, Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas also struck down the rule that permanently disqualified officers from promotion after being considered twice but not promoted to grade 22, terming the change illegal.
However, the court rejected a plea challenging the legality of the board’s constitution without the prime minister, ruling that the meeting chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar was in accordance with the law.
The judgment came in a case filed by seven Grade 21 bureaucrats – Muhammad Asad Islam Madni, Murtaza Khan, Sohail Ali Khan, Asif Saifullah Paracha, Aamir Zulfiqar Khan, Owais Nauman Kundi and Amna Imran – against their non-promotion to Grade 22, with their plea partially accepted.
The court observed that Pakistan’s promotion framework could not exclude officers from future consideration solely on the basis of being overlooked twice, noting that such a rule deprived officers of promotion even if they improved their service performance.
With reference to the minutes from the board meeting, it appeared from the judgment that the civil servants were denied promotion on the basis of negative assessments regarding integrity, competence and decision-making ability, and were labeled as having average or below average ability.
The court found that such conclusions were not sufficiently supported by the record and directed that promotion decisions be based solely on official service records rather than personal impressions or unconfirmed information.
It further noted that adverse findings regarding integrity were recorded against Sohail Ali Khan, Murtaza Khan and Amna Imran, but no basis for such findings was found in their service records and the adverse material was also not shared with the officers concerned.
The board had also recorded remarks about financial integrity and questionable financial reputation of certain officials, which the court said required formal departmental procedures if substantiated.
The judgment held that denying promotion on the basis of alleged questionable integrity while allowing an officer to continue serving in grade 21 reflected improper exercise of discretion.
Such an approach, the court noted, effectively stigmatizes an officer without due process, deprives them of rightful promotion, and allows the alleged allegations to lapse without any formal investigation or punishment.
