IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.

C.P No: D-43/2008

For Katcha Peshi

04-11-2010.

Mr. Imdad Ali Ujjan for the Petitioner.

Mr. Madad Ali Shah Masoomi, Standing Counsel.

The grievance of petitioner is that he, in spite of being ranked at Serial No. 1 of the seniority list, was not promoted and his juniors were promoted. The main reasons which deprived the petitioner of promotion are stated in Paragraphs 3 & 4 of the Para-wise comments filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, which are as follows:-

3. “That Para No. 3 of the Petition. It is submitted that the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in the year 1996 for grant of promotion as Joint Director (V.P), but since he was not fulfilled of requirements promotion at relevant promotion criteria, as such he was dropped due to above reason. (The minutes of DPC are reproduced as under:-

“He lacks four good reports. His ACRs for FY 89 and 94 are adverse. ACRs for FY 90, 93 and the last one i.e. ACR for FY 95 is average censured on 09-07-1996. His recovery performance as Regional Manager, Dadu, during the year 1994-95 did not remain satisfactory. (Photostat of minutes of meeting held on 10-08-1998 is appended herewith as Annexure “A”, Photostat of criteria for promotion for the year 1996 is appended herewith as Annexure “B” and Photostat of list of officers, who deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee 2007 for promotion as Vice President is appended herewith as Annexure “C”.

The allegations leveled against the respondents in this Para are baseless and concocted, but due to above stated reasons, the petitioner was dropped for promotion.

4. That Para No. 4 of the petition is denied. It is submitted that the petitioner was considered for promotion as Vice President by the DPC in the year 2007, but he was not recommended by the said DPC, as he has failed to achieve qualifying marks due to average/adverse ACRs in Cadre. It is submitted that as per promotion policy of the Bank to the employees, who achieved 65 marks for eligible for promotion as Vice President, while the petitioner had achieved 60.5 marks, whereas the other employees viz. the respondents No. 5 to 50 achieved the required marks/merits as such they were recommended by the DPC for promotion as Vice President, while the petitioner was dropped due to non-achieving the required marks/merits. (Photostat of ACRs grading of the petitioner showing the average marks for the year 1988 to 2005 is appended herewith as Annexure “D” and Photostat of profile for promotion of Assistant Vice President and above showing at 60.5 marks as Annexure “E”.

When the meeting of DPC was held in 1996, the petitioner was not promoted on the basis of his adverse performance, as reflected in the above referred Paragraphs. However, we have noted that when DPC met in 2007 in order to again consider the promotion of the petitioner, the adverse remarks or the poor performance, that pertained to a period prior to 1996, were again made basis for depriving the petitioner promotion to the higher grade. His entire 10 years’ past performance i.e. from 1997 to 2006 was before the DPC but not a single year’s performance was discussed in order to come to the conclusion that petitioner is not fit for promotion. If there were adverse remarks against the petitioner prior to 1996 - for which he was denied promotion in 1996, then it does not mean that whenever his name would come up for consideration for promotion to the higher grade, his subsequent performance is to be totally ignored. We have noted that performance of petitioner from 1997 to 2007 have completely been overlooked while depriving him promotion to the higher grade. We have also seen the assessment in respect of the DPC of 2007, which reveals that neither any major penalty has been imposed on the petitioner for the last three years (2003 to 2006) nor there are adverse remarks for those three years. The only adverse remark is that he obtained less marks. This assessment of less marks is not based on his performance of past three years from the commencing of the meeting.

In the circumstances, let the DPC re-consider the promotion of the petitioner on the basis of his performance pertaining to the period which is after 1996. The petitioner shall be duly communicated the reasons of said decision, and in case the DPC finds him fit to be promoted on the basis of his performance, then he should be accorded promotion from the date when the others were promoted in 2007. Let the petitioner be considered for promotion in the next DPC meeting. By then if the petitioner stands retired, then he may be accorded proforma promotion.

With these directions, this Petition is disposed of.

Judge

Judge

Rashid