Secretary fails to satisfy Senate body on promotions

ISLAMABAD: The Senate Standing Committee on Cabinet, which took up the issue of the controversial promotions of senior government officers approved by the Central Selection Board (CSB) in May this year, has directed the Establishment Division to bring the exact reason of deferment cases to be scrutinised by the Standing Committee in its next meeting.
Senator Talha Mehmood, chairman committee, presided over the meeting attended by several members. The officials of the Establishment Division were headed by Secretary Establishment Nadeem Asif Hassan.
Though there were some other items on the agenda too, the committee members particularly focused on this issue and gave a very tough time to the establishment secretary.The senators pointed out several severe irregularities in approving or rejecting the cases of the senior officers by the CSB. The committee chairman informed the session that civil service is a backbone of the executive which is one of the main pillar of the State.
Choosing the officers for promotion on personal liking and disliking or their political affiliation will ruin this system, he said. Quaid-i-Azam also declared the civil servants as the officers of the State and not the officer of the Government, he said. The recent promotion criteria has negated the basic principle set by the Quaid, he added.
The establishment secretary informed the committee that the CSB is headed by FPSC chairman with 16 members who scrutinised the cases in detail and gave their recommendations. He further informed that 75 marks are needed for promotion in BPS-21 and 70 for BPS 20.
He explained that out of 100 marks, 70 marks are reserved for ACRs, 15 for mandatory training courses and 15 on the discretion of the Selection Board. In case mandatory training is exempted, the officer gets marks in proportion to the ACR marks which he had obtained. To qualify for promotion, the total score obtained by the officer should be 70 or 75 whatsoever the case may be.
It was further informed by the Secretary that the Central Selection Board keeps 5 marks to determine the integrity of the officer and he has to secure at least three marks out of them. For the members, it was a surprise to know that if an officer is not given those three marks by the CSB, he will be declared rejected/deferred even if his total marks are over 80.
The members protested unanimously that how the integrity of person can be judged by CSB at their own sweet will, when his service record speaks differently. It was also felt that when the officer whose case is under consideration does not appear for interview before the CSB and only his long service record is placed before there, why the Board deviates from the record and start giving marks on the basis of personal liking and disliking.
Secretary Establishment stated that the board members knew the officers personally and they gave integrity marks purely on merit. Therefore, the recommendations for approving cases or its rejection was completely on merit.
The Chairman and the Committee Members pointed out the names of several officers who were deferred despite having very clean record whereas several officers, particularly police officers in KP, who were promoted declaring them very honest, had faced inquiries by NAB for corruption and even some of them plea bargained and deposited illegal money they had earned earlier.
It was also pointed out that in cases of cadre and non-cadre officers, severe discrimination was discovered. Certain officers who have less ACR scoring were given more marks by the CSB whereas the officer having better ACR marks were given less marks. In certain cases just to defer the officer he was not given marks for mandatory training and exemption marks for training which was his right.
The officers of the Establishment Division could not give reason for this discrimination and their yardstick in determining the quantum of marks. The concerned officials present on the occasion could not give specific reasons for deferment of cases when all the record was complete.
The officers were declared deferred by simply mentioning “the CSB wants to see the work related performance of the officer for another one year”. It was also felt that in some cases the officers will be retired before their cases are put up in the next CSB meeting.
The committee also appreciated that the Prime Minister had shown no confidence in the CSB and converted all the supersession into the deferment. However, since the deferment were unwanted; therefore, these need to be revoked for restoring honour of the officers and removing the uncalled for stigma on their integrity.
The establishment secretary informed the committee that the next CSB meeting will be held in October this year and the deferred cases would be taken up in the meeting.However, the committee did not agree with notion of the Secretary Establishment and directed him to come up with reasons behind deferment of cases. The members of the standing committee were of the view that it would give such directions which could give justice to the deserving officers as the Upper House is very important in providing justice to common man.