2011 P L C (C.S.

) 1130
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J. Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ
TARIQ AZIZ-UD-DIN and others: In re
Human Rights Cases Nos. 8340, 9504-G, 13936-G, 13635-P & 14306-G to 14309-G of 2009, decided on
28th April, 2010.
(a) Civil Servants Act, (LXXI of 1973)------S. 9---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973---Notification S.R.O.
1047(I)/1993, dated 23-10-1993---Promotion---Selection Grade---Basic Scales-21 to 22---Procedure--Use of discretion---Principles---Provisions of S.9 of Civil Servants Act, 1973, mainly deal with
promotions up to Basic Scale-21 procedure whereof has been laid under Civil Servants (Appointment,
Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973---Presently rules are not available for promotion to selection grade
i.e. front Basic Scale-21 to Basic Scale-22, although in year, 1993 vide Notification S. R.O. 1047
(I)/1993, dated 23-10-1993, such rules were framed but those were rescinded on 4-4-1998---In absence of
any rules for promotion to Basic Scale-22, reliance has to be placed on S. 9(2)(a)(b) of Civil Servants Act,
1973, according to which in case of selection post, selection has to be made on the basis of merit and in
case of non-selection post on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness-Promotion to posts in Basic Scales-20 and
21 and equivalent, under S.9 (2) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, has to be made on the recommendations of
Selection Board---For promotions from Basic Scales- 21 to 22 no other criterion has to be taken into
consideration except merit---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 judge made law by full application of mind.
Chairman RTA v. Pak. Mutual Insurance Co. PLD 1991 SC 14; Director Food, N.-W.F.P. 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. Se c r e t a r y G ov e r n me n t of Balochistan 2009 SCMR 1354 and Delhi Transport
Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress AIR 1991 SC 101 rel.

2008 P L C (C.S.) 353

[Federal Service Tribunal]
Before Ch. Muhammad Ilyas and Syed Bilal Ahmed, Members
MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN
Versus
ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF E-IN-C'S BRANCH GHQ, RAWALPINDI and 2 others
Appeal No.1663(R)CS of 2005, decided on 13th December, 2007.
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)------S. 9---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4---Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, R.3(c)--Appeal---Promotion, entitlement to---Appellant was superseded due to punishment awarded to him,
whereas his junior was promoted---Appellant who though was subsequently promoted after more than
one year from the promotion of his junior, had filed appeal with a prayer that he be assigned seniority in
terms. of R.3(c) of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993---Validity---Minor penalty, such as censure,
would not constitute a bar to promotion---Award of penalty fell within the domain of the Competent
Authority to punish rather than Departmental Promotion Committee to interpret it for a differentiated
weightage to justify a discrimination---Censure was a minor penalty and the law was that a minor penalty
would not stand in the way of promotion---Record of appellant was generally such as would make him fit
for promotion when criteria applicable under law was seniority-cum-fitness and the promotion involved
was not against a selection post---Respondent had been promoted despite one of the ACRs for the last five
years was missing---Said respondent though had a slightly better record, but that was a case of promotion
on seniority-cum-fitness and appellant also deserved to be promoted on the basis of his record regardless

of the penalty of censure---Appellant's supersession was converted into deferment and authorities were
directed to consider promotion of appellant to take effect from the same date and fix his seniority in
accordance with R.3(c) of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993.
1986 PLC 228; 1995 PLC 734; 1991 PLC 1195; 2001 PLC 1062; 1990 PLC 62; PLD 1992 SC 144 and
1987 PLC (C.S.) 179 ref
2008 P L C (C.S.) 450
[Sindh Service Tribunal]
Before Justice (Rtd.) Abdul Ghani Shaikh, Chairman, Ashique Hussain Memon, Member-I and
Qabool Ahmed Shaikh, Member-II
BASHIR AHMED NIZAMANI
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH S&GAD through Chief Secretary and 5 others
Appeal No.400 of 2005, decided on 18th July, 2007.
Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973)------S. 9---Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S.4---Promotion---Appeal to Service Tribunal--Maintainability---Appellant had assailed the Notification issued by the Chief Secretary, whereby
respondents were promoted, but the appellant was not so promoted---Appellant had prayed that meeting
of Provincial Selection Board could. be re-convened to determine afresh the promotion cases including
that of appellant---Validity---Provisions of S.9 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, had provided that a
promotion in the case of a selection post would be made on the basis of selection on merit and in the case
of a non-selection post on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness---Posts in question carrying B-19 & 20, being
selection posts, the promotion on said posts would be made on the basis of selection on merits--Appellant due to low qualifications was not found fit for promotion to B-20 and was superseded--Contention of appellant that one of the respondents was not eligible to be considered for promotion to B20 as he was facing investigation in NAB case, was repelled, because mere facing investigation in NAB
case would in no way disentitle respondent from being considered for promotion to a higher rank; even
otherwise according to the Department, investigation of NAB case against the respondent had already
been concluded---Appeal being devoid of merits, was not maintainable.
1995 SCMR 881; 1996 SCMR 329; 1996 SCMR 850; 1998 SCMR 607; 2001 SCMR 1446; Habib-urRehman v. Secretary, C&W, Government of Sindh and others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 56; Mian Abdul Malik v.
Dr. Sabir and others 1991 SCMR 1129; Muhammad Anis v. Abdul Haseeb and others PLD 1994 SC 539;
Zafarullah Baloch v. Government of Balochistan and others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1002; Secretary, Education
Department Sindh v. S. Riaz-ul-Hassan 1986 SCMR 64 and Sarwar Hussain Shah v. Azad Kashmir
Government and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 302 rel.

P L D 2008 Supreme Court 769

Present: Abdul Hameed Dogar, C. J., Ijaz-ul-Hassan Khan and Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, JJ
FAZALI REHMANI---Appellant
Versus
CHIEF MINISTER, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and others---Respondents
Civil Appeal No.1346 of 2007, decided on 19th June, 2008.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19-4-2007 in Service Appeal No.831 of 2005 passed by the N.W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar).
(e) Civil service---

----Promotion---Non-selection posts and selection posts---Requirements---Where posts carrying basic pay

scale 18 or below are non-selection posts, promotion to those posts is to be processed by Departmental
Promotion Committees on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness, as per clause (1) of Heading II of the
Guidelines for Departmental Promotion Committee/Central Selection Board (at p.234), SI.No.154,
contained in the ESTACODE, 2000 (Edition), the posts in basic pay scale 19 or higher are selection posts
and promotion to those posts are to be processed through the Central Selection Board---In order to ensure
that selection by these Boards does not amount to a mere elimination of the unfit, clause 2 of the said
Guidelines further provided that the Establishment Division must place larger panel of eligible officers
before the Boards depending on the availability of eligible officers in a cadre---Clause 3 of the Guidelines
required that for selection posts "quality and output of work" and "integrity" in all Annual Confidential
Reports recorded on the civil servant during his service as an officer will also be quantified in accordance
with formula given in Addendum to the Guidelines and those marks shall be a crucial factor in
determining comparative merit of officers for promotion to selection posts.
2003 P L C (C.S.) 212
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, Hamid Ali Mirza and Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, JJ
GOVERNMENT Of PAKISTAN through Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others
Versus
HAMEED AKHTAR NIAZI, ACADEMY OF ADMINISTRATIVE, TRAINING WALTON,
LAHORE and others
Civil Appeals Nos. 1599 to 1606 of 1999, decided on 11th October, 2002.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7-12-1998 of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal
No. 124(L) of 1980).
(a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)------S.9---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4---Promotion---Selection post and non-selection
post---Criterion for promotion---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Scope---Criterion for promotion in
case of selection post is merit, while in case of non-selection post it is on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness---Criterion for selection for promotion to the higher grade rests upon decision of the
Competent Authority---No other forum/Authority can assume the duties, which specifically have been
assigned to the Competent Authority--Seniority is one of the factors, which is considered for promotion,
but seniority alone is not enough---Promotion is not automatic but it depends on many other factors, such
as, competence, availability of post and antecedents etc. and none of the said factors is less important than
seniority and for promotion all these factors, on case-to-case basis, are to be considered---Benefit of
promotion, on the basis of improved seniority, as a matter of right in selection grade, cannot be claimed
nor the Service Tribunal in appeal is competent to grant the same from back date, as the same is explicitly
beyond its jurisdiction---Requirements for promotion having not been examined by the Competent
Authority at the relevant time, promotion could not be granted by the Service Tribunal---Civil servant
cannot ask for promotion as a right, and granting or refusal of promotion is a matter, which is within the
exclusive domain of the Government/Executive Authority---If promotion is denied to a civil servant it
could not be termed as denial of any fundamental right.
Muhammad Umar Malik v. Federal Service Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 172; Muhammad Saleem
Bhatti v. Secretary to Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore and 2 others 1985 PLC
(C.S.) 26; R. Sampath v. The State of Madras and another AIR 1962 Mad. 485 and M.A. Moqeem v. The
State of Mysore and others AIR 1963 Mys. 219 ref.
1973 SCMR 304; 1985 SCMR 1394; PLD 1991 SC 1118; 1996 SCMR 850 and 1988 SCMR 736
distinguished.