ISLAMABAD: Amid legal challenges, the promotion of hundreds of top bureaucrats has met a setback following a dispute among members of the Central Selection Board (CSB) over their discretionary powers in deciding the future of civil servants.

As a result, a marathon meeting of the CSB convened to consider elevation of officers from Grade-20 to -21 ended abruptly last week without taking up any case for promotion.

Instead, the chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC), who also heads the CSB, decided to seek guidance from the Attorney General for Pakistan (AGP) to settle the matter in true spirit of a recent decision of the Supreme Court that declared as illegal the 15 discretionary marks to CSB members and set other principles for promotion of senior officers. Efforts are afoot to reconvene the meeting for Dec 4-7 on the basis of expected opinion of the AGP.

Meeting to consider bureaucrats’ promotion put on hold

Sources said the FPSC chairman told the CSB members on Nov 26 that the Board no more had the 15 marks at its disposal to recommend promotion of officers from Grade-20 to 21 since an office memorandum issued by the establishment division was not protected by any law or rules. He also informed the members that the apex court had cancelled the 15 discretionary marks in a judgement on Oct 25 this year.

After an exchange of heated arguments, some members of the CSB believed there was no point of having them in the board and the meeting when they did not have marks to allocate in promotion cases. The FPSC chairman concluded that the AGP should be requested to advise on the issue in the light of the Supreme Court’s decision.

During the period from the inception of Promotion Policy in 1982 to 2007, the promotion boards did not have any discretionary marks at their disposal and the promotions were determined on the basis of civil servants’ service dossiers. In 2007, however, the establishment division changed the course and gave CSB members a sweeping power to deny promotion to any civil servant for a year to monitor his/her performance even if there was no flaw in an officer’s 20-year career.

Secondly, 15 discretionary marks were put at the disposal of CSB officers without spelling out the basis and criteria for their award through a memorandum notwithstanding the fact that Civil Servants Act and the Rules thereunder did not allow such a wild and unchecked discretion.

A third change was made to the promotion policy in 2012 that empowered the CSB to supersede a civil servant even if he/she otherwise achieved the marks required for promotion. The scrutiny by the high courts and the Supreme Court deprecated in succession in different cases the CSB’s 15 discretionary marks and ordered the establishment division to make the promotion process fair and transparent.

The establishment division issued three OMs in 2012, 2014 and 2017 in reported compliance of the courts’ orders, but maintained 15 discretionary marks in each OM. Each of these successive OMs met the courts’ tough judicial scrutiny and could not stand. The apex court in its Oct 25 order had clearly directed the establishment division to reconsider within one month on the basis of service dossiers of all those deferments and supersession which had been made earlier in 2015 on the basis of 15 discretionary marks.

Interestingly, unlike Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution which provide for separate lists of qualifications and disqualifications to hold a political office, Rule 8-A of the Appointment, Promotions and Transfer (APT) Rules, 1973, lists only three qualifications to hold a higher office in civil service like prescribed length of service, completion of mandatory trainings and passing of a departmental examination. While APT Rules contain no disqualifications for promotion to the next higher grade, almost all denials to promotions are made on the basis of two imaginary disqualifications of ‘corruption’ and ‘incompetence’ without any legal cover or explanation.

Over the years, the establishment division has chosen to fight legal battles and waste precious national resources in promotion controversies instead of adding these two disqualifications and a fair and transparent mechanism for their determination in the APT Rules.

The CSB also recommends promotion, but has been working without rules defining its constitution, its members’ functions and powers and the remedies against its decisions. In contrast, the FPSC recommends initial appointments to service and has been working under an ordinance and rules which contain all these provisions.

The Supreme Court had warned in its order of October 25 that “in case the Federal Government still persisted in not complying with our judgment, we shall no more be taking a lenient view and shall pass appropriate orders against all those responsible for such non-compliance”.

The civil servants disappointed over the establishment division’s failure to implement Supreme Court’s order within one month have started pouring in fresh petitions in the apex court to initiate contempt of court proceedings against the alleged contemnors.

Published in Dawn, December 3rd, 2018