ISLAMABAD: A cloud of uncertainty shrouded the upcoming promotion of doctors of the federal capital’s premier hospital as the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday ruled that promotion of any doctor would be temporary until the dispute over seniority is decided by the competent forum.

IHC Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan while disposing of the petition of Pims doctor Majida Zafar, ruled that the upcoming promotions of doctors were subject to provisions provided in the rules related to sub-judice cases.

The Central Selection Board (CSB) will consider the promotion of scores of senior bureaucrats including Pims doctors in its meetings scheduled to be held on Nov 25 to 27.

The petitioner, Dr Majida Zafar, through her counsel Tania Bazai challenged the upcoming meeting saying that she had been discriminated and deprived of the seniority through tailer-made notification.

She sought from the court a direction for her departmental appeal to be decided well before the upcoming CSB meeting in which the promotion of a panel forwarded by Pims administration would be considered for upward promotion.

The panel included directors Dr Najma Khursheed, Dr Sadia Aftab and deputy director Dr Nousheen Amjad.

Advocate Bazai requested the court to issue direction to the CSB not to convene the meeting until the departmental appeal of her client was decided.

According to the petition, these respondents belonged to the administrative cadre and lacked the requisite experience for promotion to associate professor of gynecology, as they have never served as an assistant professor of gynecology which is a prerequisite for the subject promotion.

Justice Khan observed that the matter pertains to the Federal Services Tribunal (FST) where the seniority of doctors was sub judice.

Advocate Tania Bazai argued that the petitioner was forced to file the current petition because the FST had become dysfunctional on October 31, 2024.

However, it was acknowledged that the FST was operational between July and October, during which she could have filed an appeal.

The court thus held that the proper recourse was with the FST, not in the constitutional jurisdiction of this court.

The court also noted that, according to Rule 9 of the Civil Servant Promotions (BPS 18-21), 2019, the seniority of respondents in her cadre would be contingent upon the final decision of her appeal in the FST.

It may be mentioned that Rule 9 says: “A civil servant whose seniority is sub-judice may be considered for promotion. subject to final outcome of the court case…The promotion if approved under sub-rule (1) shall be considered a temporary promotion”.

The court observed that this rule provided a safeguard for the petitioner if the FST ultimately ruled in her favour.

The court emphasised that while the petitioner’s request to defer the Central Selection Board (CSB) meeting could not be granted, Rule 9 would remain in effect for any promotions or seniority decisions made in the upcoming CSB meeting.

The court acknowledged the heavy caseload of the FST and other judicial bodies, which may impact how soon her appeal would be decided. Nonetheless, it emphasised that Rule 9 provides a protective measure, ensuring that the outcomes of any promotions or seniority rankings in the interim remain subject to the FST’s ultimate ruling.

Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2024