FPSC restrained from making final decision in FBR appointments case

PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Tuesday restrained the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) from making a final decision about the appointment made against 607 posts of Appraising Officers, Valuation Offers, Custom Inspectors and Preventive Officers in the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) till final verdict in the writ petition.

A two-member bench comprising Justice Yahya Afridi and Justice Roohul Amin Khan issued the stay order in final appointment of the posts in the writ petition filed by Appraising Officers Inamullah Khan and Amirullah Khan through their lawyer Isaac Ali Qazi.

The bench issued notice to FBR through its chairman to submit comments and details about the quota for departmental promotions for the petitioners and other officers in the vacant posts before the next hearing to be held on January 11, 2017.

During the course of hearing, the lawyer submitted that the petitioners were inducted into government service in May 1999 and they were presently working under the administrative control of Collector Customs, Peshawar.

He informed the court that the government on March 9, 2015 issued notification (SRO 202(1)/2015) in which it was clearly stated that 50 percent vacant seats would be filled through departmental promotions.

He submitted that the FPSC on behalf of FBR on June 4, 2015 had issued an advertisement regarding fresh appointments against 200 vacant posts of Customs Officers, Intelligence Officers and Prevention Officers (BPS-16) for Pakistan Customs. The lawyers submitted that the FBR issued the advertisement in violation of the notification and didn’t allocate departmental promotions quota for the employees.

The lawyer pointed out that on July 1, 2015 the FPSC on behalf of the FBR issued another advertisement about 227 posts of Appraising/Valuation Officers (PBS-16) and didn’t allocate posts for departmental promotions.

He said the FBR had advertised 6-7 posts through the FPSC for direct recruitments against various positions. He said that under the law, the department should first reserve 50 percent quota from the posts for departmental promotions, but the quota was fully ignored.

He said the petitioners had 18 years of experience and the department deprived them of their due right of promotion as the posts were filled directly through fresh appointments in violation of the departmental promotions.

The lawyer submitted that delaying the promotion of the departmental employees against the departmental quota would result in losing seniority if fresh candidates recruited against the direct quota, which would damage their future career.