ISLAMABAD:
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Tuesday stayed the ‘illegal transfers
and promotions’ in the Intelligence Bureau (IB) besides seeking a reply
from the agency’s director general (DG), according to Online.
A single bench of the IHC, comprising Justice Noorul Haq Qureshi, also stayed the meeting of the IB’s Central Selection Board (CSB) to be held today (Wednesday) to take decisions about the promotions and transfers of officers.
Justice Qureshi passed these orders after petitioner Muhammad Arif Zulqarnain, Deputy Director IB, contended before the court that the CSB was going to promote blue-eyed junior officers from Grade 18 to 19 only six days before the DG IB, who will chair the CSB, was to retire.
The IHC bench directed the IB and the Establishment Division to submit para wise comments within a fortnight with observations that the high court could not determine seniority of an official.
The petitioner, through his counsel Hafiz Arfat Ahmad Chaudhry, adopted before the court the IB senior administration through its CSB was going to promote junior officers into Grade 19 while ignoring the seniority list.
The petitioner alleged that the DG IB, who is going to retire on April 02, 2014, was going to grant premature promotions to some blue-eyed persons from BPS-18 to BPS-19 in an extraordinary and unusual haste, ignoring seniority of the petitioner that was illegal.
The petitioner contended that he had an excellent academic background. He joined the IB on June 26, 2001 as Assistant Director in BPS-17 through the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) and was placed at serial No2 on the seniority list determined by the FPSC. There is no adverse report that has ever been issued against the petitioner. Rather, he has always been appreciated by his superiors and in 2006 he was promoted to BPS-18.
He said in order to get further elevation to the post of director in BPS-19, it is mandatory for an official to have a minimum 12 years of service besides completing the mandatory promotional courses.
The petitioner made a request to his higher authorities in the year 2009 to send him for mandatory promotional courses so that his case could be placed before the CSB but the request was not accepted due to his engagement in sensitive and important official assignments.
However, all batch-mates of the petitioner and several junior officers were sent to attend the courses that they completed in due time. This “discriminatory policy” will eventually lead to denial of promotion to the petitioner. The petitioner contended it was evident from the record that it was the decision of the higher authorities not to send him on promotional courses for over four years and no fault could be attributed to the petitioner in this regard.
After numerous requests of the petitioner, he has been nominated for the promotional course which is going to conclude on April 11, 2014, enabling him for consideration for promotion as director in BPS-19. The petitioner contended that he had learnt that the respondents were going to hold a meeting of the CSB on March 26, 2014 promoting their favourites. The petitioner immediately moved a departmental representation but received no response thereto. The act of the respondents is based on ‘patent malafide’ and the same grossly contradicts the fundamental rights of the petitioner, he contended.
The petitioner told the court that despite his best efforts, he could not procure necessary documents from his department for the assistance of this court. The petitioner has been denied access to the concerned documents, including the seniority list.
He claimed being the senior-most officer currently serving in BPS-18. The petitioner prayed to the court to direct the respondents to hold a meeting of the CSB for grant of promotion from BPS-18 to BPS-19 after completion of ongoing Mid Career Management Course that is going to conclude on April 11, 2014.The court will take up this matter after the respondents submit their comments.
A single bench of the IHC, comprising Justice Noorul Haq Qureshi, also stayed the meeting of the IB’s Central Selection Board (CSB) to be held today (Wednesday) to take decisions about the promotions and transfers of officers.
Justice Qureshi passed these orders after petitioner Muhammad Arif Zulqarnain, Deputy Director IB, contended before the court that the CSB was going to promote blue-eyed junior officers from Grade 18 to 19 only six days before the DG IB, who will chair the CSB, was to retire.
The IHC bench directed the IB and the Establishment Division to submit para wise comments within a fortnight with observations that the high court could not determine seniority of an official.
The petitioner, through his counsel Hafiz Arfat Ahmad Chaudhry, adopted before the court the IB senior administration through its CSB was going to promote junior officers into Grade 19 while ignoring the seniority list.
The petitioner alleged that the DG IB, who is going to retire on April 02, 2014, was going to grant premature promotions to some blue-eyed persons from BPS-18 to BPS-19 in an extraordinary and unusual haste, ignoring seniority of the petitioner that was illegal.
The petitioner contended that he had an excellent academic background. He joined the IB on June 26, 2001 as Assistant Director in BPS-17 through the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) and was placed at serial No2 on the seniority list determined by the FPSC. There is no adverse report that has ever been issued against the petitioner. Rather, he has always been appreciated by his superiors and in 2006 he was promoted to BPS-18.
He said in order to get further elevation to the post of director in BPS-19, it is mandatory for an official to have a minimum 12 years of service besides completing the mandatory promotional courses.
The petitioner made a request to his higher authorities in the year 2009 to send him for mandatory promotional courses so that his case could be placed before the CSB but the request was not accepted due to his engagement in sensitive and important official assignments.
However, all batch-mates of the petitioner and several junior officers were sent to attend the courses that they completed in due time. This “discriminatory policy” will eventually lead to denial of promotion to the petitioner. The petitioner contended it was evident from the record that it was the decision of the higher authorities not to send him on promotional courses for over four years and no fault could be attributed to the petitioner in this regard.
After numerous requests of the petitioner, he has been nominated for the promotional course which is going to conclude on April 11, 2014, enabling him for consideration for promotion as director in BPS-19. The petitioner contended that he had learnt that the respondents were going to hold a meeting of the CSB on March 26, 2014 promoting their favourites. The petitioner immediately moved a departmental representation but received no response thereto. The act of the respondents is based on ‘patent malafide’ and the same grossly contradicts the fundamental rights of the petitioner, he contended.
The petitioner told the court that despite his best efforts, he could not procure necessary documents from his department for the assistance of this court. The petitioner has been denied access to the concerned documents, including the seniority list.
He claimed being the senior-most officer currently serving in BPS-18. The petitioner prayed to the court to direct the respondents to hold a meeting of the CSB for grant of promotion from BPS-18 to BPS-19 after completion of ongoing Mid Career Management Course that is going to conclude on April 11, 2014.The court will take up this matter after the respondents submit their comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment