 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 2109 TO 2139 OF 2016 AND 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 516 OF 2017 
(Against the judgment dated 08.06.2016 the Islamabad 
High Court, Islamabad passed in I.C.As Nos. 368, 372, 
377, 382, 383, 385, 387, 409, 415, 433, 375, 379, 382, 412, 
406, 417, 429, 400, 402, 403, 423, 398, 414, 426, 374, 368, 
416, 384/2015, CMA 2816/2016 in ICA 384/15 and ICA 
411/2015) 
 
 
 
AND 
C.M.As. NO.5210, 7645/2016 in C.A.2109/2016 
C.M.A. No. 6094/2016 in C.A.2136/2016 
 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary,  
Establishment Division, & others  
(in CA 2109-2118/16) 
 
Muhammad Ashraf & others 
 
(in CA 2119/16) 
Ms. Rubina Tayyab & others  
 
(in CA 2120/16) 
 
Muhammad Zahid & others 
 
(in CA 2121/16) 
Sq.Ldr.(R) M. Irfan Elahi & others 
(in CA 2122/16) 
Yousaf Naseem Khokhar & others 
(in CA 2123/16) 
Capt. (R) Ejaz Ahmed 
 
 
(in CA 2124/16) 
Samin Ullah Khan Gandapur 
 
(in CA 2125/16) 
Capt (R) Tariq Hayat Khan 
 
(in CA 2126/16) 
Dr. Kamran Fazal  
 
 
(in CA 2127/16) 
Malik Tahir Sarfraz Awan  
 
(in CA 2128/16) 
 
Khawaja Umar Mehdi 
 
 
(in CA 2129/16) 
Sohail Akhtar 
 
 
 
(in CA 2130/16) 
Imran Tariq  
 
 
 
(in CA 2131/16) 
Muhammad Ayub Minhas 
 
(in CAs 2132-2134/16) 
Mukhtar Ahmed Baig 
 
 
(in CA 2135/16) 
Sohail Muhammad Khan  
 
(in CA 2136/16) 
Humayun Iqbal Shami 
 
 
(in CA 2137/16) 
Badar Zaman 
 
 
 
(in CA 2138-2139/16) 
…Appellants 
 
 
Zahid Rashid 
 
 
 
(in CP 516/17) 
…Petitioner 
VERSUS  
Dr. Muhammad Arif and others  
(in CA 2109 & 2119/16) 
Shah Muhammad Jamal & others 
(in CA 2110/16) 
Ghani ur Rehman Wazir & others 
(in CA 2111/16) 
Qaiser Majeed Malik & others  
(in CA 2112/16) 
Waqar Haider & others  
 
(in CA 2113/16) 
Hafiz Zafar Ali Malik & others 
 
(in CA 2114/16) 
Syed Imtiaz Altaf & others 
 
(in CA 2115/16) 
Suresh Mal & others 
 
 
(in CA 2116/16) 
Rana Muhammad Iqbal & others 
(in CA 2117/16) 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
2
Dr. Muhammad Shafique & others 
(in CA 2118/16) 
Secretary, Establishment Division  
(in CA 2120-2139/16  
& others 
 
 
 
 
& CP 516/17) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Respondents 
 
For the Appellants: 
Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, Addl. AG 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR (In CAs.2109-2118/16) 
 
 
 
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, SASC 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR (In CA 2119/16) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 2120-2124/16) 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Faiz Ahmed A. Jandran, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR (In CA 2132-2134/16) 
Barrister Masroor Shah, ASC (In CA 2136/16) 
 
 
 
 
In person (In CAs 2135 & 2137 to 2139 of 2016) 
Mr. Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 2125-2131/16) 
For the petitioners:  
Mr. M. Munir Paracha, ASC. 
(In CP 516/17) and CMA 5210/16 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Abdur Rehman Siddiqui, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(In CAs 2110,2112,2116/16) 
Syeda B.H. Shah, ASC. (In CA 2109/16) 
Mr. Mehrban Khan, Admin Officer M/o Defence 
For respondents 185-187 in CA 2135/16) 
 
 
 
 
Barrister Masroor Shah, ASC  
(In CAs 2111,2113,2118/16) 
 
For official respondents: Mr. Afnan Karim Kundi, Addl. AGP. 
(In CA 2119-2139/16) 
For the applicants:  
Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Bhutta, ASC 
(In CMA 7645/16) 
For Respondents:  
Mr. Imran Fazal, ASC.(In CAs. 2121 2129, 2131/16) 
For Respondents:  
Mr. Nasir Mehmood Mughal,  
Spl. Prosecutor NAB. In CAs. 2138-2139/16) 
 
 
Date of Hearing:  
13.03.2017 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
 
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J. Impugned through the present 
appeals is the judgment dated 08.06.2016 whereby a learned Division 
Bench of the Islamabad High Court, upheld the judgment dated 27th 
July, 2015, in terms whereof a learned Single Judge of the said Court 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
3
declared the criteria for the award of 15 marks at the disposal of 
Central Selection Board (CSB), with overriding effect of 5 marks and 
thereby placing the civil servants in category A, B and C, as against  
the dictum laid down by this Court in the case of Orya Maqbool 
Abbasi (2014 SCMR 817) and the judgment of the Islamabad High 
Court rendered in Iram Adnan’s case (2012 PLC (CS) 1355), and also 
that the process carried out by CSB on the basis of above formula, and 
resulting into deferment/supersession of the respondents as illegal, 
without jurisdiction and violative of the law laid down by this Court.  
 
2. 
 
Before we proceed to examine the legality and 
proprietary of the recommendations in question, It would be beneficial 
to refer to the legal framework pertaining to the matter of promotion of 
the civil servants and its procedure.  
 
3. 
 
It is Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 that provides 
for and, deals with the promotion of a civil servant in the following 
terms: 
“9. 
Promotion.- (1) A civil servant possessing such minimum 
qualification as may be prescribed shall be eligible for 
promotion to a higher post for the time being reserved under 
the rules of departmental promotion in the service or cadre to 
which he belongs: 
 
Provided that the posts of.. 
(a) 
………………………………………………………………………. 
 
(b) 
………………………………………………………………………. 
 
(2) 
A post referred to in sub-section (1) may either be a selection 
post or a non-selection post to which promotions shall be made as 
may be prescribed.. 
 
(a) 
In the case of a selection post, on the basis of selection 
 
on merit; and 
 
(b) 
In the case of a non-selection post, on the basis of 
 
seniority-cum-fitness. 
 
 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
4
(3) 
Promotion to posts in basic pay scales 20 and 21 and equivalent 
shall be made on the recommendations of a Selection Board which 
shall 
be 
headed 
by 
the 
Chairman, 
Federal 
Public 
Service 
Commission.” 
 
 
 
The above provisions are supplemented by Rules 7, 8 and 8-A of The 
Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. For 
the ease of reference the said rules are reproduced hereunder: 
“7. 
Promotion and transfers to posts in **[basic pay scales 2 
to 18 and equivalent, ***[except the posts specified in sub 
clause (i) of clause (b)] and equivalent] shall be made on the 
recommendation of the appropriate Departmental Promotion 
Committee and promotions and transfers to posts, ***[specified 
in sub clause (i) of clause (b) and posts], in ***[basic pay scales 
19 
to 
[21] 
and 
equivalent] 
shall 
be 
made 
on 
the 
recommendations of the Central Selection Board. 
 
8. 
Only such persons as possess the qualifications and meet 
the conditions laid down for the purpose of promotion or 
transfer to a post shall be considered by the Departmental 
Promotion Committee or the Central Selection Board as the 
case may be; 
 
8-A. 
No promotion on regular basis shall be made to posts in 
Basic Pay Scales 17 to 22 and equivalent unless the officer 
concerned has completed such minimum length of service, 
attended such training and passed such departmental 
examination, as may be prescribed from to time.” 
 
 
4. 
 
However, since the Federal Government felt that the 
above legal framework was not sufficient to meet the functional 
requirement, it therefore, with the approval of the President of 
Pakistan, supplemented the same by a “comprehensive and 
consistent set of policy guidelines”, by way of Promotion Policy, 1982 
(“The 
Policy”). 
The 
policy 
contained 
certain 
guidelines 
for 
Departmental Promotion Committees (DPCs)/Central Selection Boards 
(CSBs) which included the following two: 
(i) 
Confidential reports will be given due importance but will 
not be the sole criterion for promotion to selection posts; 
 
(ii) 
Performance evaluation as reflected in the confidential 
reports will be quantified according to formula enunciated in the 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
5
enclosed guidelines and weightage will be given to more recent 
appointment (emphasis supplied). 
 
By way of general instructions the policy provided that the DPC/CSB 
shall consider the cases of eligible civil servants in order of seniority and 
either: 
(a) 
Recommend a civil servant for promotion to the next 
 
higher post; or 
 
(b) 
Recommend a civil servant for supersession; or 
 
(c) 
Defer 
consideration 
of 
a 
civil 
servant’s 
promotion 
 
provided that this step will be taken only if: 
 
(i) 
The CR dossier is incomplete or any other 
document/information required by the DPC/CSB for 
determining a civil servants suitability for promotion 
is not available; or 
 
(ii) 
Disciplinary 
or 
departmental 
proceedings 
are 
pending against the civil servant whose promotion 
case comes up for consideration before the 
DPC/CSB; or 
 
 
(iii) 
The civil servant on deputation abroad to a foreign 
government, private organization or international 
agency; or 
 
 
(iv) 
The civil servant does not possess the requisite 
 
length of service; or 
 
(iv) 
The civil servant has not undergone the prescribed 
training or passed the departmental examination 
for reasons beyond his control; or 
 
(vi) 
The civil servant’s inter se seniority is sub judice. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Emphasis supplied) 
 
The policy further required that the civil servant whose promotion has 
been deferred will be considered as soon as the reason on the basis of 
which deferment took place ceases to exist. (Emphasis supplied)  
 
5. 
 
The formula for quantifying the ACRs of the officers under 
consideration by the committee or the board also was appended to 
the policy. The policy also prescribed that the civil servant who fails to 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
6
come up to the qualifying score shall not normally be considered for 
promotion. However, the committee/board may, for the reason to be 
recorded in detail, recommend relaxation of the said condition, to the 
competent authority. (Emphasis supplied)  
 
6. 
 
For promotion to selection posts the policy, inter alia, 
required that the entries under “quality and output of work” and 
“integrity” in all the ACRs recorded on the civil servant during his 
service as an officer will also be quantified in accordance with formula 
given in the Addendum thereto, and that such marks shall be a crucial 
factor in determining comparative merit of the officers for promotion to 
selection posts. (Emphasis supplied) 
 
7. 
 
Some 
amongst 
the 
various 
essential 
qualifications 
prescribed for promotion to the post carrying BPS-20 and BPS-21were 
as follow: 
(i) 
Eligibility threshold: attain a minimum score of 70 marks in 
CRs in accordance with the formula given in the 
Addendum; 
 
(ii) 
Relevance of Experience: possess experience relevant to 
the functions of the post to which promotion is being 
made; 
 
(iii) 
Quality and Output of Work and Integrity: marks 
calculated in accordance with the formula in the 
Addemdum shall be a crucial factor in determining the 
comparative merit of an officer. (Emphasis supplied) 
 
It may be, and especially in respect of clauses (i) & (iii), noted that in 
terms of the Addendum to the policy, marks in favour of the officer 
under consideration were to be calculated/awarded on the basis of 
his confidential reports (CRs). (Emphasis supplied) 
 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
7
8. 
 
Through D.O. No. 10(3)/84-CP-I. dated 30th April, 1984, it 
was required that the committee/board shall specify the exact 
grounds under para 1(c) of the guidelines, for recommending a civil 
servant’s promotion, supersession or deferment. Through DO No. 
10(10)/85-CP dated 15 May, 1985 the Establishment Division, in view, 
inter alia, of its perception that the trend towards inflated reporting 
which had been in vogue since inception, has, because of the higher 
eligibility threshold fixed for the selection posts, achieved greater 
proportion, 
and 
thus 
added 
to 
the 
pressure 
on 
reporting/countersigning officers to be overly generous in their 
assessments, and as such most of the average officers were being  
graded as “good” and the good as “very good”, adversely affecting 
the genuinely outstanding officers, introduced a more cautious 
approach/criteria for evaluation and its quantification & grading, and 
also introduced an additional/higher category in relation to the 
grading of the officers.  
 
9. 
 
The instructions and the guidelines for DPC/CSB, were 
reviewed once again. Such was done on the basis of the 
recommendations made by the committee on Promotion Policy, 
purportedly to “develop a comprehensive criteria for selection, for 
promotion/deferment/supersession which, is measurable to the extent 
possible, comparable with regard to performance of each officer on 
the panel and is based on tangible record duly placed on the dossier 
and also re-defines discretion of the members and the board and, to 
lay down as to how more objectivity can be brought in the 
recommendations of the selection board” . (Emphasis supplied) 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
8
 
10. 
 
The above recommendations of the committee, as 
contained in the Establishment Division’s OM No. 1/3/2007/CP/-II dated 
24th October, 2007, also prescribed conditions for deferment. One such 
condition being an eventuality where the board considers the records 
as incomplete, or wants to further watch the performance of the 
officer, or for any other reason to be recorded in writing. (Emphasis 
supplied) It also prescribed the minimum threshold of marks for 
promotion to various scales. Such marks prescribed for BPS-18, are 50, 
for BPS-19, are 60, for BPS-20, the marks are 70, and for BPS-21, the 
marks prescribed are 75. It further provided that no officer meeting the 
aggregate thresholds shall be superseded. (Emphasis supplied) The 
allocation of marks based on Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs), 
Training Evaluation Reports (TERs) and evaluation by CSB were 
prescribed as follows: 
S.No. 
Factor 
Marks 
1. 
Quantification of PERs 
relating 
to 
present 
grade 
and 
previous 
grad(s) @ 60%:40% 
70% 
2. 
Training 
Evaluation 
reports 
in 
ratio 
of 
60%:40% 
15% 
3. 
Evaluation by CSB 
15% 
 
Total: 
100% 
 
The 
OM 
dated 
24.10.2007, 
also 
required 
that 
the 
officers 
superseded/deferred by the CSB be informed about the reason for his 
supersession/deferment to enable him to improve his performance and 
to complete his records or to make up any other deficiency, as the 
case may be. (Emphasis supplied) 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
9
 
11. 
 
Through OM dated 19th January, 2012 the Establishment 
Division clarified that the reasons for supersession/deferment on the 
recommendations of the CSB are to be communicated to the officers 
concerned immediately after such recommendations have been 
approved by the respective competent authority. (Emphasis supplied) 
 
12. 
 
From the foregoing, it can be seen that in terms of the 
Promotion Policy, as originally conceived & formulated, performance 
evaluation was to be based on and, quantified as per the confidential 
reports of the officers under consideration. The service record/dossier 
was found, and naturally so, to be of such crucial importance that its 
non-availability 
or 
the 
non-availability, 
of 
any 
other 
document/information required for determining the suitability of the 
officer concerned was to result in the deferment of consideration of 
the officer. The significance attributed to evaluation and its 
quantification so achieved is evident from the fact that the same was 
not left to the whims of the board, but a well laid down and elaborate 
formula was prescribed for the same. It was further prescribed that the 
officer who thus fails to meet the qualifying score shall not normally be 
considered for promotion. Furthermore the quantification of the 
“quality & output of work” and “integrity”, evaluated and quantified as 
above, was described as a crucial factor in determining comparative 
merit of the offices for promotion to the selection post. The significance 
of 
the 
service 
record 
as 
a 
source/basis 
of 
the 
above 
evaluation/quantification was so great and crucial in the eyes of the 
framers of the policy that the eligibility threshold set down through the 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
10
policy was a minimum score of 70 marks in the confidential reports, 
and therefore, in the Addendum to the policy document, it was 
reiterated/emphasized that marks for the eligibility threshold, and in 
respect of “quality & output of work” and integrity were to be 
calculated/awarded on the basis of the confidential reports. The 
evaluation, its quantification & the grading, which were wholly based 
on the service record of the officer concerned, being of crucial 
significance, the Establishment Division through DO dated 15.05.1985 
introduced a more cautious approach in that regard and also created 
additional/higher category as per such grading of the officer 
concerned.  
 
13. 
 
The policy was however, with a stated objective of 
developing a comprehensive criteria, measurable with reference to 
the performance of each officer in the run, as per the tangible record 
duly placed on the dossier and for prevalence of objectivity, revised 
through, DO dated 24.10.2007, in terms whereof now 70% of the marks 
on the scale were reserved for quantification of the PERs, 15% were 
reserved for training evaluation, whereas the remaining 15% were 
allocated for evaluation by CSB. However, as is patently evident, 
ironically and contrary to the avowed objective, the above bifurcation 
of marks, instead of inducing any objectivity in the process, created 
vagueness and ambiguity and removed the focus of evaluation from 
the exclusivity of the service record and brought it within the realm also 
of undefined and unstructured discretion of the board, and in fact 
practically within the discretion of just a few of its members (as not all 
members could possibly be said to be familiar with the officers under 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
11
consideration), and thus giving rise to whimsical and arbitrary 
decisions/recommendations, 
based 
on 
personal 
opinion 
rather 
impressions, not based on any prescribed, relevant and permissible 
material.  
 
14. 
 
The process thus evolved could not withstand the judicial 
scrutiny which resulted in the judgment rendered by a learned Judge 
of the Islamabad High Court in writ petition No. 863/2011 titled as 
Gulab Zamir vs. Federation of Pakistan, dilating upon the question of 
15% marks allocated for evaluation by CSB, the learned Judge 
observed and held as follows: 
 
“As far as marks given by the Central Selection Board are 
concerned, these are exclusively discretionary. These marks are 
to be given with reference to Service Record and having been 
examined the comparative marks as well as the performance of 
the officer in the Training Reports. The officer concerned does not 
appear before the  Central Selection Board; there is no interview 
and there is every possibility that the Selection Board may not be 
knowing the person, whose case for promotion is before them, so 
some criteria is required to be evolved as these marks can not be 
given simply on the basis of whims. The order of Selection Board is 
required to be based upon proper reasons… 
 
7. 
…In absence of any criteria, it would become unfettered 
discretion of the Central Selection Board to recommend 
promotion of one person and refuse the same to another similarly 
placed officer… 
 
8. 
In the circumstances, I accept this petition; the order of 
supersession is converted into deferment and the case is sent 
back to the Central Selection Board with the direction to 
determine ‘Specific Criteria’ for assessing the officer and pass a 
just and fair order, based on reasons.”(Emphasis supplied) 
 
 
15. 
 
The allocation of marks for evaluation by CSB was once 
again declared illegal and un-constitutional by the Islamabad High 
Court, in the case of Mrs. Iram Adnan (2012 PLC (CS) 1355), whereby 
the Court directed the Establishment Division to restructure the 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
12
provision of awarding 15 marks by CSB. In deciding so, the learned 
Judge relied on the case of Secretary, Revenue Division vs. Gul 
Muhammad (2011 SCMR 295), and upon an earlier judgment of this 
Court in CPs No. 836 and 837 of 2016, where a judgment of the Federal 
Service Tribunal, directing the Establishment Division to bring more 
objectivity in the criteria for excellence and comparative merit, by 
defining it further, so that more specific, detailed and, well thought out 
reasons for denying promotion to an officer, who is otherwise eligible, 
could be given, was upheld by this Court with the following 
observations: 
“2… We are of the opinion that decision with regard to 
promotion of the Officer cannot be left on the discretion of 
Members of the Board. There must be some criteria to judge 
the performance of a candidate because promotion was 
denied to the officer on the ground that he does not fulfill the 
criteria. When there is no criteria, then how a person can  be 
denied promotion, therefore, the Service Tribunal has rightly 
observed that the Board must bring more objectivity in the 
criteria.” (Emphasis supplied) 
 
16. 
 
Similar views were expressed by an Honourable Bench of 
the Lahore High Court in respect of the above policy of granting 15 
marks by the CSB in the case of Liaquat Ali Chughtai (PLD 2013 Lah 
413), by stating that the CSB had consciously adopted a policy to 
place reliance on the personal views and impressions of the Members 
regarding the integrity and reputation of the officers under 
consideration and that the process so adopted by the CSB negates 
the very purpose of the CSB which is expected to form a collective 
view after independent application of mind to the facts and 
circumstances of each case, and was required to meticulously review 
the service dossier of the officers under consideration and formulate a 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
13
collective opinion. The board’s reliance on the personal opinions of its 
Members in making recommendations for the supersession of the 
officers under consideration was held to be an affront to fairness; due 
process and Article 10 of the Constitution. The power and discretion of 
the board to grant 15 marks to the officers was held not to be 
sufficiently structured or elaborately tailored to reflect thorough 
deliberation and proper analytical assessment. The Court thus, set 
aside the impugned selection process and declared the same illegal 
and un-constitutional, with direction for framing a well thought-out 
objective criterion in accordance with the 2007 Revised Promotion 
Policy. The Court also directed the CSB to form its opinion on the basis 
of evidence before them in the form of complete service dossier 
comprising of PERs for the last over 15 years and restrained the board 
from  relying on any evidence without confronting the officer 
concerned with the same, and also not to pass any adverse order on 
the basis of any impressions, nurtured, and opinion harboured by its 
Members without placing any tangible evidence supporting such 
opinion before the board, and then confronting the officer concerned 
with such evidence .(Emphasis supplied)  
 
17. 
 
It seems that it was in the light of the judgments in the 
cases of Iram Adnan and Liaqat Ali Chughtai, that the Establishment 
Division constituted a committee to restructure the formula/criteria for 
award of marks by the CSB, so as “to bring in more objectivity in the 
light of the observations made by the High Court”, and thus through 
OM No. F.1/1/2012-CP.I dated 12th October, 2012 made certain 
amendments 
in 
the 
promotion 
policy, 
and 
prescribed 
new 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
14
parameters/attributes by way of (i) integrity/general reputation 
/perception; (ii) personality profile; (iii) conduct, discipline and 
behaviour. The attributes “quality and output of work”, and “integrity” 
earlier contained in the 1982 policy were revived. A new objective 
assessment form for assessment in respect of the attributes namely (i) 
quality & output of work; (ii) integrity/general reputation/perception; 
(iii) variety and relevance experience; (iv) top management potential; 
(v) personality profile; and (vi) conduct, discipline & behaviour was 
introduced. The OM further provided that the above objective 
assessment form shall be placed before the CSB along with panel 
proforma of every officer for his/her objective evaluation by the CSB 
and, that the board shall assess each officer on the panel on the basis 
of said parameters/attributes 
(Emphasis 
supplied) and, that after 
assessment/evaluation the CSB shall place the officer in any of the 
following category and, assign appropriate marks accordingly: 
Sl. No.  
 
Category 
 
 
Range of Marks 
1. 
 
 
Category-A  
= 
11- to 15 
2. 
 
 
Category-B  
= 
06 to 10 
3. 
 
 
Category-C  
= 
00 to 05 
 
 
The Memorandum further provided that an officer meeting the 
aggregate threshold (70 marks for BPS-20 and 75 for BPS-21) shall also 
be superseded, in case the CSB places him in category-C. 
18. 
 
The objective assessment form introduced through OM 
dated 12.10.2012 is, for the ease of reference, reproduced hereunder: 
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT BY CSB (as per OM dated 12.10.2012) 
 
S.No. 
Parameters/Attributes 
Categories 
1. 
Quality and Output of Work 
Cat-A 
(11-15) 
Cat-B 
(06-10) 
Cat-C 
(00-05) 
2. 
Integrity/General 
 Reputation/Perception (Last 05-Yrs of 
Synopsis OR as known to the Board members 
 
 
 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
15
3. 
Variety & Relevance of Experience 
Nature of Duties, duration and location of Yrs 
whichever is longer relevant to the functions of 
posts in BS-21 
BS-18 (if applicable)    =      yrs 
BS-19                             =      Yrs 
BS-20                             =      Yrs 
Total                              =       Yrs  
 
 
 
4. 
Top Management Potential 
(Observation by RO/CO if any OR 
as known to the  Board Members 
 
 
 
5. 
Personality Profile 
(As known to the Board Members)  
 
 
 
6. 
Conduct, discipline & Behavior 
(Observation by RO/CO during last five years 
OR as known to the Board members 
 
 
 
7. 
Total 
 
 
 
8. 
Average 
 
 
 
9. 
Marks by CSB 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(Emphasis supplied) 
19. 
 
It can be seen from the various columns in the above 
form, that further departing from the previous practice of evaluating 
the officers under consideration exclusively on the basis of their service 
record, which comprise of their PERs and TERs of the last several years, 
and thus granting them marks accordingly, through the above form, 
except for the numerical data, the assessment/evaluation, marking 
and categorization could now, also be done exclusively on the basis of 
the knowledge of the members of the Board. Such option that the 
board could now exercise was in respect of certain crucial 
attributes/aspects such as, “integrity”, “top management potential”, 
“personality profile”, “conduct discipline and behaviour”, and, 
therefore the amendment made purportedly to bring the process, 
approach and criteria in line with the various directives of the Courts, 
and to remove from the process, the blemish and abrasion of 
unbridled and arbitrary exercise of discretion, and instead provide an 
open transparent objective criteria based on tangible record which 
could be lawfully taken into consideration, and to meet the essential 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
16
requirements of adequate disclosure and fairness, rather reinforced 
and further perpetuated the tendencies and practices deprecated by 
the Courts, and therefore when decision of CSB made under the 
above dispensation, and thus placing the officers under consideration 
by the Board in its meetings held in the year 2013, in category-C, was 
brought under the scrutiny of this Court in the case of Orya Maqboo 
abbasi (2014 SCMR 817), this Court held that although promotion was 
not a right but a civil servant fully qualified for promotion has a right to 
claim that his case may be considered for promotion strictly following 
the eligibility criteria laid by the authority, and that though the officers 
not meeting the eligibility criteria for promotion could be deferred, but 
the deferment could not be arbitrary and not supported by the service 
record, it was further held that the Board conducted itself arbitrarily as 
in view of their PERs, the officers were fully eligible for promotion but the 
Board  “failed to take into consideration such reports for the reasons 
not tenable under the law and their such findings were clear violation 
and departure from the promotion policy because once the officers 
have fulfilled the criteria, their cases have to be considered to assess 
the fitness and suitability to share higher responsibility mostly based on 
objective criteria, instead of denying promotion to them for the 
subjective consideration”. The impugned decision of the Board was 
declared to be whimsical, violative of the promotion policy and based 
on subjective considerations. The notification for promotion of all the 
officers based on the recommendation of the CSB through the above 
exercise/process was set aside with direction for conducting the 
process of promotion of all the officers concerned, strictly on merits 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
17
and in consonance with Section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and 
Rules 7, 7-A and 8 of The Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and 
Transfer) Rules, 1973, and the promotion policy. The Government was 
also directed to evolve an objective criteria for promotion of the civil 
servants.  
 
20. 
 
It was purportedly in pursuance of the above directives 
that the objective assessment form was, vide OM dated 10.02.2014, 
revised once again and the form reproduced hereunder was thus 
introduced: 
OBJECTIVE ASSESSMENT BY CSB ( as per OM dated 10.02.2014) 
 
S.No. 
Parameters/Attributes 
Total 
Marks 
Marks  
Assigned 
1. 
Output of Work and Quality of Work 
 
 
2. 
Variety & Relevance of Experience 
Secretariat/Field Postings; 
Federal/Provincial Government 
Postings; Leadership/Routine Postings; 
Deputation/Foreign Postings 
 
 
3. 
Professional Expertise 
 
 
4. 
Personality Profile 
(As known to the Board Members) 
10 
 
5. 
Conduct, Discipline and Behavior 
(Observation by RO/CO during last 05 years OR as 
known to the Board Members) 
 
 
6. 
Functional Ability and Leadership 
 
 
7. 
Estimated Potential for Middle/Higher Management 
Based on PERs and Training Evaluation Reports; 
Management Skills, Ability to take decisions, Strategic 
Thinking, Leadership Qualities, Drive for Results and 
Accomplishments in BPS-19 and 20 in policy 
formulation & implementation   
 
 
8. 
Integrity/General Reputation/Perception 
On the basis of PERs/TERs/Opinion of the Board 
5 
 
9. 
Total Marks by CSB 
15 
 
10. 
Overall Category 
Cat-A      Cat-B      Cat-C 
(11-15)   (06-10)   (0-05) 
 
 
 
 
* 
An officer under consideration, getting less than 3 out of five under this 
parameter may be defended or superseded by the CSB at their discretion but with 
reasons to be recorded in writing. 
 
 
_______________ 
Secretary CSB 
Dated 
________________ 
________________ 
(Chairman CSB) 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
18
 
21. 
 
However, the above amended form, as is evident from its 
plain reading, instead of providing any evaluation structure, not only 
left it open for the board to choose either the service dossier of the 
officer concerned as a source material for the evaluation of the 
various essential & crucial attributes of the officer, or just to rely upon 
the personal knowledge of its members for the said purpose, whereas 
in relation to the candidate’s personality profile it was left exclusively to 
be evaluated on the members knowledge, without any reference to 
any record, and above all, and more crucially, for an officer to avoid 
deferment or supersession (one out of two at the option of the board) 
it is made essential to obtain at least 3 out of the 5 discretionary marks 
in respect of “integrity/general reputation/perception”. This created an 
anomalous situation where an officer who may have otherwise, 
achieved the required threshold on the basis of evaluation of his 
service record, may still be superseded by the Board on the basis of the 
opinion harboured or nurtured by a few of its members, and instead 
less deserving officer may be recommended, which could result in the 
degeneration of the civil service, and dissatisfaction & despondency 
amongst its cadres.  
 
22. 
 
The recommendation of the board made in its meetings 
held on 05.05.2015 and 07.05.2015, on the basis of the assessment form, 
as discussed above, were impugned through 57 different writ petitions, 
filed by its affectees before the Islamabad High Court. The petitions 
were disposed of through a judgment dated 27.07.2015, which was 
assailed before a Division Bench of that Court resulting in the 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
19
impugned judgment, whereby the appeals, challenging the striking 
down of the OM dated 10.02.2014 along with the objective assessment 
form annexed thereto to the extent of five (5) overriding discretionary 
marks, have been dismissed and the entire process carried out by the 
CSB on the basis of OM dated 10.02.2014 and the objective 
assessment 
form 
annexed 
thereto, 
and 
resulting 
in 
the 
recommendations of the CSB for deferment/supersession of the officers 
under consideration has been declared to be unlawful and violative of 
the law laid down by this Court in Orya Maqbool Abbasi’s case, with 
direction to the Establishment Division to reframe the formula in light of 
the observations contained in the impugned judgment with a further 
direction to reconsider the cases of all the officers whether promoted 
or not promoted by it through the impugned process/exercise in 
accordance with directions as contained in the judgment.  
23. 
 
The entire impugned process being flawed for want of a 
well thought out structured objective criteria, and lacking in due 
process, gave way to arbitrariness, ambiguity and a whimsical 
approach, inasmuch as drifting from reliance upon the service dossier 
of the officer, (which were duly and meticulously qualified with all 
assessment spectrum, including overall performance and output and 
also regarding the integrity of the officer), and instead placing reliance 
on undefined personal opinion, and that too without qualifying it with 
the necessity of being based on any tangible evidence/material, 
resulted in adverse recommendation, like as reproduced hereunder:- 
  
 
 
S.No. 
Name of 
Petitioner 
WP No. 
Reasons for supersession as 
recommended by CSB 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
20
1. 
Qaiser Majeed 
Malik (PAS) 
1401/2015 
Followings reasons provided: 
“Though the 
officer met the 
minimum threshold of 75 marks, 
yet the Board, after assessing the 
officer 
against the 
prescribed 
objective 
assessment 
criteria, 
besides keeping in view the PERs, 
TERs and knowledge of the Board 
members, placed in category C 
and accordingly recommended 
him for supersession.” 
2. 
S.Asif Mateen 
Zaidi 
1506/2015 
Following reasons provided: 
“Though the 
officer met the 
minimum threshold of 70 marks, 
yet the Board, after assessing the 
officer 
against the 
prescribed 
objective 
assessment 
criteria, 
besides keeping in view the PERs, 
TERs and knowledge of the Board 
members, placed in category C 
and accordingly recommended 
him for supersession. 
3. 
Samin Ullah Khan 
1507/2015 
Following reasons provided: 
“Though the 
officer met the 
minimum threshold of 70 marks, 
yet the Board, after assessing the 
officer 
against the 
prescribed 
objective 
assessment 
criteria, 
besides keeping in view the PERs, 
TERs and knowledge of the Board 
members, recommended him for 
supersession.” 
 
 
 
24. 
 
As can be seen from the foregoing, though all the officer 
named therein, achieved the prescribed threshold on the basis of their 
PERs and TERs, but have been superseded on the basis of knowledge 
of the board’s members, but neither has any reason given for ignoring 
the quantification in the service record, nor the nature and/or source 
of the so called knowledge been disclosed. Since it has not even been 
stated as to what came to the knowledge of the members (and to 
which of them) so as to persuade them to override the evaluation on 
the basis of the service dossier of the officer covering the entire 
spectrum of his performance and conduct, spread over long years of 
his service, and recommend his supersession in the face of his meeting 
the prescribed criteria otherwise, and therefore neither was the board 
in a position to disclose or convey to the effectee any ground/reason 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
21
for his predicament, nor was any explained before us, despite our 
repeated queries, and thus the process not only violated the 
requirement of adequate disclosure, but also offended the principle of 
fairness, due process and procedural propriety. Even otherwise the 
appellant has not been able to show any thing adverse against the 
officer in their respective service dossiers. We have also noted that in 
the cases of deferment also no plausible explanation or reason has 
been mentioned. The matter of promotion, deferment or supersession 
of a civil servant and that too of BPS-20 and 21, is of enormous 
significance, having a bearing on the state structure and cannot be 
left to be dealt with in an arbitrary, casual and capricious manner, like 
in the present case. 
 
25. 
 
It was for the foregoing reasons that we through a short 
order dated 13.3.2017, dismissed the titled appeals/petition, and would 
hereby direct the Establishment Division to place all of those cases 
which 
were 
laid 
before 
the 
board 
through 
the 
impugned 
exercise/process, afresh, after withdrawing the overriding effect of five 
(5) marks assigned for integrity/reputation etc. and removing the 
deviation of the focus of the board from the service dossier to the 
personal knowledge of its members. The above exercise be initiated 
within four weeks, and be concluded within ten weeks from 13.4.2017. 
In the meanwhile, those who may have been promoted on the basis of 
impugned recommendations shall maintain their such elevated 
position/status. However, in the event the officers whose cases for 
promotion have been recommended to be deferred or superseded, 
are through the proposed process recommended for promotion, they 
CAs 2109  to 2139 etc of 2016 
22
shall maintain their seniority viz’a‘viz those who were recommended for 
promotion through the impugned process, and may again be so 
recommended, so that the seniority of the presently left out officers 
and so also their entitlement to the consequential benefits, including 
prospects of their future promotion is not adversely effected.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE  
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
ISLAMABAD. 
13th March, 2017 
Rizwan 
“APPROVED FOR REPORTING” 
