SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.551 OF 2020 
[Against the judgment dated 18.12.2018, passed by the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar in W.P.No.5030-P of 2017] 
 
 
Director 
General 
of 
Intelligence 
& 
Investigation, F.B.R., Islamabad and others. 
 
…Appellants 
Versus 
Muhammad Aslam Khan. 
…Respondents 
 
 
For the Appellant (s) 
: Mr. M.D. Shahzad Feroz, ASC 
with Muhammad Israr ul Haq, 
Intelligence Officer 
 
  
For the Respondent (s) 
: Mr. 
Muhammad 
Shoaib 
Shaheen, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, 
AOR 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 21.09.2020 
 
O R D E R 
 
 
Gulzar Ahmed, CJ:-  The case is quite simple, as stated by 
the learned counsel for the appellants, in that, there were 8 vacancies 
for direct recruitment to the post of LDC. No direct recruitment against 
the vacant posts was made. Respondent-Muhammad Aslam Khan was 
employed as Sepoy in the office of Director General, Intelligence and 
Investigation, Federal Board of Revenue on 09.09.1985. On the 
recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and 
with the approval of the Director General, the competent authority vide 
order dated 07.07.2007, the respondent was promoted as LDC on 
acting charge basis. The period of probation was mentioned as one year 
with further period of one year. It was further mentioned that on 
CA.551 of 2020 
- 2 - 
 
 
 
termination of probationary period, the appointment shall be deemed to 
be held until further orders. Much after completion of the probationary 
period, the respondent requested for his confirmation as LDC but his 
request was denied. The respondent initially filed Writ Petition No. 
1084-P/2012, which was disposed of through order dated 05.11.2013, 
directing the appellants to consider the case of the respondent for 
confirmation as LDC. It seems that the appellants considered the case 
of the respondent and denied his request for confirmation as LDC. Yet 
again, the respondent filed a writ petition, which came to be decided by 
the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2018 by a learned Division Bench 
of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby the writ petition was 
allowed in terms that the respondent shall be deemed to be confirmed 
as LDC (BPS-7), immediately, after completion of probationary period 
with all service benefits. Against the said judgment, leave to appeal was 
granted by this Court on 29.05.2020. 
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in 
terms of Rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and 
Transfer) Rules, 1973, the respondent has no vested right to be 
confirmed as LDC and in any case, there was 10% quota for promotion.  
3. 
 
On considering the arguments of the learned counsel for 
the appellants, what appears is that it is self destructive and also self 
serving. It seems that the appellants themselves violated the mandate of 
Article 27 of the Constitution when they promoted the respondent from 
the post of Sepoy to the post of LDC, on acting charge basis, against the 
post specifically reserved for direct recruitment. The respondent for 
almost 10 years served on the post of LDC and when he asked for 
confirmation, it was refused to him. The appellants took refuge under 
Rule 8-B ibid. The appellants cannot be allowed to approbate and 
CA.551 of 2020 
- 3 - 
 
 
 
reprobate at the same time, and in law, the appellants will be estopped 
from taking such position. The respondent did nothing and could not 
have done anything to obtain his promotion from the post of Sepoy to 
that of the post of LDC and thus, the granting of such promotion to the 
respondent was a voluntary act of the appellants themselves. The 
vacancy of LDC did exist but was meant for direct recruitment. The 
appellants for their own convenience promoted the respondent to the 
post of LDC on acting charge basis and thus, cannot be heard refusing 
confirmation to the respondent to the post of LDC, for it was the 
appellants’ own voluntary act. The provision of Rule 8-B ibid as 
canvassed before us, will not apply to the present case in the facts and 
circumstances.  
4. 
 
It cannot be imagined that since 2007, when there were 
vacancies for direct recruitment, no recruitment against such vacancies 
were made and as per the submission of the learned counsel for the 
appellants, such vacancies still exist. This is a classical case of failure 
of administration on the part of the appellants, in that, from 2007 to 
date, it has not been able to fill up the vacancy of LDC through direct 
recruitment.  
5. 
 
So for the submission of the learned counsel for the 
appellants that there are 10% vacancies meant for promotion to the 
post of LDC, we have not been shown any material or document, which 
could establish that 10% promotion vacancies with the appellants were 
ever filled in. What appears is that one Mansoor Ali Khan, who was 
employed as Sepoy on 05.11.1998, was given regular promotion as LDC 
on 07.07.2007. This is the same date on which the respondent was 
given promotion on acting charge basis. The reason given for regular 
promotion of Mansoor Ali Khan is that he obtained highest typing speed 
CA.551 of 2020 
- 4 - 
 
 
 
of 30 words per minute (WPM). Although such is mentioned by the 
appellants, but they have not attached any document of typing test 
showing that Mansoor Ali Khan obtained highest typing speed of 30 
WPM. Even if it is admitted that Mansoor Ali Khan secured higher 
marks, still he was junior by almost 13 years’ to the respondent and 
such period is not accounted for in any document.  
6. 
 
We may note that similar case also come before this Court 
by way of Civil Appeals No.164 to 168 of 2012 titled as Government of 
Pakistan, Revenue Division, etc. Vs. Shafqat Ali Awan and others, which 
appeals were dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2020 and review 
petitions filed against such order came to be dismissed today i.e. 
21.09.2020.  
7. 
 
It seems that the appellants are running the department 
not only on ad hocism but are also apparently conducting themselves in 
an illegal manner and such factum is also supported by the letter dated 
24.12.2004, by which the appellants ordered the promotion of 
ministerial staff to next higher posts against available vacancies of 
direct quota on acting charge basis. Further, by letter dated 
30.03.2007, the appellants again ordered the promotion of ministerial 
staff to the post of Intelligence Officer against the post falling to the 
share of direct recruitment quota on acting charge basis.  Though the 
Rule provides for promotion on acting charge basis, but such Rule has 
been made bona fide, to be used in bona fide situations and for bona 
fide purposes, and not to exploit the employees, who in the present 
case, is a ministerial employee and further, to perpetuate the 
maladministration of the department, which in the present case, is 
what the appellants are doing. No such acts of the appellants can be 
countenanced nor can the appellants be allowed to make its ministerial 
CA.551 of 2020 
- 5 - 
 
 
 
staff hostage to appellants’ own arbitrary, whimsical and capricious 
conduct and play with the employment of its ministerial staff. This will 
amount to allowing premium to the appellants for their apparent bad 
conduct and conduct, which is not mandated by law. 
8. 
 
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Copy of the order is 
sent to the Chairman, FBR for taking of appropriate action against the 
delinquent officials. 
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
Bench-I 
Islamabad 
21.09.2020 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Rabbani/* 
JUDGE 
 
