ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has declared null and void the recommendations of the 29th meeting of the High Power Selection Board, in which the youth were recommended for promotion from Grade 21 to Grade 22, without taking into account senior officers.
In a detailed 63-page ruling, Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas also struck down the rule that permanently disqualified officers from promotion after they were twice considered but not elevated to Grade 22, calling the amendment illegal.
The court, however, rejected a plea questioning the legality of the board’s constitution without the chief minister and held that the meeting chaired by deputy chief minister Ishaq Dar was in accordance with the law.
The verdict was issued 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, and their petitions were partially accepted.
The court observed that Pakistan’s promotion framework could not prevent officers from future consideration solely for having been passed over twice, noting that such a rule deprived officers of promotion even if they improved their service record.
Referring to the minutes of the board of directors meeting, the ruling indicated that the officials were denied promotion based on negative evaluations regarding integrity, competence and decision-making ability, and were labeled as having average or below average ability.
The court determined that such conclusions were not adequately supported by the recorded material and ordered that promotion decisions must be based strictly on official service records and not on personal impressions or unverified information.
He further noted that adverse integrity findings were recorded against Sohail Ali Khan, Murtaza Khan and Amna Imran, but there was no basis for such findings in their service records, nor was the negative material shared with the officers concerned.
The board had also recorded observations regarding the financial integrity and questionable financial reputation of certain officials, which the court said required formal departmental procedures if substantiated.
The ruling held that denying promotion on the basis of alleged dubious integrity while allowing an officer to continue serving in Grade 21 reflected an improper exercise of discretion.
Such an approach, the court noted, effectively stigmatizes an officer without due process, deprives him of legitimate promotion and allows alleged allegations to lapse without any formal investigation or sanction.
