Does SC order make CSB redundant?

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court’s detailed judgment on civil service promotions, issued on Thursday, has made the otherwise high powered Central Selection Board (CSB) redundant.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court directed the CSB through the Establishment Division to have focus on service dossier of the officers while deciding their promotion instead of relying on the personal knowledge of the board members.

The SC judgment directed the ED, “to place all of those cases which were laid before the board through the impugned exercise/process, afresh, after withdrawing the overriding effect of five (5) marks assigned for integrity/reputation etc. and removing the deviation of the focus of the board from the service dossier to the person knowledge of its members.”

This direction of the apex court makes the “service dossier” of an officer all important as is done while making promotion against non-selection posts (BS-17 and BS-18). For the promotion against non-selection post, the formula of seniority-cum-fitness is applied, which means all officers who meet the minimum threshold are promoted on the basis of their seniority.

For selection posts, BS-19 and above, the formula of seniority cum merit is applied and here matters the collective judgment of the CSB which has to go beyond what is suggested by service dossier of an officer. 

If every senior who meets the minimum threshold (ACR number required for promotion) is given the right of promotion in highest grades -- BS 20 to BS 22 --, it would demolish the very concept of promotion pyramid. 

Both in the civil and military bureaucracy, the best amongst the best are allowed promotion as they go high in promotion ladder. For this purpose the CSB has to play important role and rely on information well beyond what is reflected in their dossiers.

Otherwise, every civil servant joining in BS-17 would expect to retire in BS-22. Such a policy would end up in promotion blockade even for outstanding officers as the vacancies get fewer as you go high.

The military has an excellent promotion system where hardly a few in a batch of over hundred officers, can make it to the office of General (Maj Gen, Lt Gen or General). 

In the civil bureaucracy, the promotion system remained controversial and far from satisfaction because of poor system of ACRs (also known as PERs), inconsistent policies of CSB and repeated interference from judiciary. ACRs should ideally reflect on the true picture of the officer concerned but in the civil service mostly the government servants get choice ACRs from their superiors on the basis of their relationship and connections.

In such a situation, the role of CSB becomes important as its members could assess the officers’ performance and repute on the basis of their personal knowledge. Such information is discussed in the board meeting and only those officers are denied promotion about whom the CSB collectively recommends so. Intelligence reports as presented before the CSB also play important role in civil servants promotions.

Regarding the system of discretionary marks in respect of “integrity/general reputation/perception” by the CSB, the SC said, “This created an anomalous situation where an officer who may have otherwise, achieved the required threshold on the basis of evaluation of his service record, may still be superseded by the Board on the basis of the opinion harboured or nurtured by a few of its members, and instead less deserving officer may be recommended, which could result in the degeneration of the civil service, and dissatisfaction & despondency amongst its cadres.”

Referring to the cases of those officers, who despite meeting the minimum criterion were not recommended for promotion in BS-21, the SC order said, “As can be seen from the foregoing, though all the officers named therein, achieved the prescribed threshold on the basis of their PERs and TERs, but have been superseded on the basis of knowledge of the board’s members, but neither has any reason given for ignoring the quantification in the service record, nor the nature and/or source of the so called knowledge been disclosed.”

The SC added, “Since it has not even been stated as to what came to the knowledge of the members (and to which of them) so as to persuade them to override the evaluation on the basis of the service dossier of the officer covering the entire spectrum of his performance and conduct, spread over long years of his service, and recommend his supersession in the face of his meeting the prescribed criteria otherwise, and therefore neither was the board in a position to disclose or convey to the effectee any ground/reason CAs 2109 to 2139 etc of 2016 21 for his predicament, nor was any explained before us, despite our repeated queries, and thus the process not only violated the requirement of adequate disclosure, but also offended the principle of fairness, due process and procedural propriety. Even otherwise the appellant has not been able to show any thing adverse against the officer in their respective service dossiers. We have also noted that in the cases of deferment also no plausible explanation or reason has been mentioned. The matter of promotion, deferment or supersession of a civil servant and that too of BPS-20 and 21, is of enormous significance, having a bearing on the state structure and cannot be left to be dealt with in an arbitrary, casual and capricious manner, like in the present case.”