Top court annuls promotions of Grade-21 officers
Orders selection board to reconvene and decide anew
Orders selection board to reconvene and decide anew. PHOTO SOURCE: REUTERS
LAHORE:
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on Wednesday set aside the decision of a high-powered selection board (HPSB) headed by the prime minister on August 1, 2016, regarding promotion of officers from grade 21 to grade 22 for being ‘contrary to merit’.
The chief justice directed the board to reconvene its meeting and decide the promotions of all concerned on merit as per seniority and submit a report in this regard before the court within 30 days.
SC upholds IHC decision to promote 300 officers
The bench issued the order on a petition of Raana Ahmed, accountant member of the appellate tribune, Inland Revenue, Lahore.
Through Barrister Ali Zafar, the petitioner submitted that she was denied promotion to BS 22 despite fulfilling all requirements. She has an outstanding service record in terms of competence, leadership and integrity; has no adverse finding or negative recommendation against her; was at No 6 on the seniority list but for mala fide reasons, some other officers — much junior to her and with much inferior record — have been promoted.
Barrister Zafar said: “She, along with her 12 colleagues was not promoted, while Chaudhry Safarad Hussain, chief commissioner, Large Taxpayers Unit; and Dr Muhammad Irshad, member (IR-Operations) FBR House, Islamabad; who were at No 10 and No 16, respectively of the seniority list, were promoted.
He said as per the minutes of the meeting of the board, the petitioner was considered not fit for promotion with the remark that she “did not have good reputation in terms of competence and leadership”.
Barrister Zafar argued before the court that Raana Ahmed, who had an outstanding service record of 34 years and in seven consecutive performance evaluation reports (PERs), was rated as ‘outstanding’ and fully entitled to promotion to Grade 22.
He, however, pointed out that the board in its meeting held on August 1, 2016 wanted to promote its favourites and, in order to give them undue favour, had chosen to promote persons who were at 10 and 16 in seniority; thereby, bypassing persons who were on merit 15 steps before them.
PM holds promotions of 395 officers
Barrister Zafar submitted that the leadership could not be allowed to appoint their cronies like this. He also pointed out that the lack of seriousness was so much that the FBR chairman, whose presence was mandatory, was not present in the meeting and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, who was not member of the board, was in the meeting. The Establishment Secretary, appearing before the court, confirmed that Ishaq Dar was present and the FBR chairman was absent but was consulted on phone only.
The chief justice observed: “Exercise of powers cannot be arbitrary, capricious and whimsical. In fact if the persons are not promoted in accordance with the seniority and record, the reasons must be objective and justiceable.”
Published in The Express Tribune, March 16th, 2017.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar on Wednesday set aside the decision of a high-powered selection board (HPSB) headed by the prime minister on August 1, 2016, regarding promotion of officers from grade 21 to grade 22 for being ‘contrary to merit’.
The chief justice directed the board to reconvene its meeting and decide the promotions of all concerned on merit as per seniority and submit a report in this regard before the court within 30 days.
SC upholds IHC decision to promote 300 officers
The bench issued the order on a petition of Raana Ahmed, accountant member of the appellate tribune, Inland Revenue, Lahore.
Through Barrister Ali Zafar, the petitioner submitted that she was denied promotion to BS 22 despite fulfilling all requirements. She has an outstanding service record in terms of competence, leadership and integrity; has no adverse finding or negative recommendation against her; was at No 6 on the seniority list but for mala fide reasons, some other officers — much junior to her and with much inferior record — have been promoted.
Barrister Zafar said: “She, along with her 12 colleagues was not promoted, while Chaudhry Safarad Hussain, chief commissioner, Large Taxpayers Unit; and Dr Muhammad Irshad, member (IR-Operations) FBR House, Islamabad; who were at No 10 and No 16, respectively of the seniority list, were promoted.
He said as per the minutes of the meeting of the board, the petitioner was considered not fit for promotion with the remark that she “did not have good reputation in terms of competence and leadership”.
Barrister Zafar argued before the court that Raana Ahmed, who had an outstanding service record of 34 years and in seven consecutive performance evaluation reports (PERs), was rated as ‘outstanding’ and fully entitled to promotion to Grade 22.
He, however, pointed out that the board in its meeting held on August 1, 2016 wanted to promote its favourites and, in order to give them undue favour, had chosen to promote persons who were at 10 and 16 in seniority; thereby, bypassing persons who were on merit 15 steps before them.
PM holds promotions of 395 officers
Barrister Zafar submitted that the leadership could not be allowed to appoint their cronies like this. He also pointed out that the lack of seriousness was so much that the FBR chairman, whose presence was mandatory, was not present in the meeting and Finance Minister Ishaq Dar, who was not member of the board, was in the meeting. The Establishment Secretary, appearing before the court, confirmed that Ishaq Dar was present and the FBR chairman was absent but was consulted on phone only.
The chief justice observed: “Exercise of powers cannot be arbitrary, capricious and whimsical. In fact if the persons are not promoted in accordance with the seniority and record, the reasons must be objective and justiceable.”
Published in The Express Tribune, March 16th, 2017.