Islamabad:
In an interesting development, the Apex court has returned to the High Poling Selection Board (HPSB) the case of a retired official for him for the Proforma “Novo” promotion.
An proforma promotion is a type of promotion granted to an employee without a change in the current position, payment or responsibilities, but with the intention of maintaining parity with a junior or a partner that may have been promoted due to structural or administrative reasons.
The Court has indicated that the promotion must be considered according to the exact ones of the fundamental rule 17 (FR 17), with a fair, impartial and significant consideration and deliberation of all the performance evaluation reports (PERS) of the petitioner.
“All exercise must be completed within a period of two months from receiving the copy of this sentence,” said an order issued by a three -member bank led by Judge Muhammad Ali Mazhar.
The petitioner, Ghulam Qadir Thebo, was promoted to BS-21 on April 3, 2013. However, it was replaced three times of consideration for promotion to BS-22 without assigning any reason.
At the second meeting of the HPSB convened on October 5, 2017, the name of the petitioner appeared in Mr. 07 on the age of BS-21 officers. However, the officers who were Junior of the petitioner were promoted. At the third meeting, his name was in Mr. 04, but once again, his case was not considered by the HPSB, and two more junior officers for him were promoted.
The petitioner presented departmental representations to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Secretary Establishment Division. However, no response was received. ‘
According to the petitioner, the denial of the promotion by the HPSB was a total contempt of its fundamental rights enshrined in articles 4, 9, 10-A, 18 and 25 of the Constitution.
Later he presented a constitutional request in the Superior Court of Sindh (SHC) in 2018.
During the pendency of the petition, the HPSB again considered the case of the petitioner and in the comments presented by the respondents, certain accusations were leveled with respect to their performance and integrity, which were completely out of the file.
The SHC then dismissed its request on January 27, 2022.
The SC pointed out that the question of eligibility correlates with the terms and conditions of service, while promotion aptitude is a subjective evaluation based on an objective criterion.
“Although consideration for promotion is a right, promotion itself cannot be claimed as a right. There is no right acquired in the promotion or rules that determine eligibility for promotion.
“However, you cannot lose sight of an employee can, according to the relevant law/rules, claim to be considered for the promotion within the law, rules, regulations and prescribed policies that provide criteria for the promotion.”
He said that the SC has ruled that if a person is not considered due to an administrative slip, an error or a delay when the right to be considered for the promotion has matured, and without such consideration, it reaches the retirement age, then obviously the route of Proforma promotion comes into play for its rescue.
“If he lost his promotion due to any administrative supervision or delay in the DPC meeting or selection board, despite having physical aptitude, eligibility and seniority, then, to be fair, he has a legitimate expectation of proforma promotion with consequent benefits.
“The disposition for proforma promotion is not alien or unknown to the structure of the official service, but it is already integrated into the FR 17.”