LAHORE: After reconsidering 1,200 cases, stuck in litigation since 2015, for promotion to a higher grade, the Central Selection Board (CSB)has now sent its recommendations to the Establishment Division which is expected to forward them to the prime minister for approval this week.

Two years ago, the CSB had met to decide whether to promote, supersede or defer the 1,200 cases, but many of those who had not been promoted had moved court against the CSB decisions. They had claimed that the CSB`s `controversial formula` for determin-ing whether or not an officer would be promoted leaned too heavily on the whims of the deciding panel.

A senior officer told Dawn that the apex court, in its March 17 decision, had directed the federal government to reconsider the cases after removing the overriding impact of five marks assigned for integrity. It had also directed the government to base the grounds for promotion on performance evaluation reports (PERs) and training evaluation reports (TERs) rather than personal knowledge of the service dossiers of civil servants.

Accordingtotheofficer,theEstablishment Division had made only `minor amendments` to the assessment form of the of fice memorandum (OM) to re-consider over 1,200 promotion cases of civil servants in the last week of June. The meeting, chaired by Federal Public Service Commission chairman Naveed Akram Cheema, lasted sevenconsecutive days. The promotions of civil servants from the Police Service of Pakistan, the Information Group, the Pakistan Administrative Service, the Secretariat Group, the Pakistan Foreign Service, the Inland Revenue Service and the Audit and Accounts, and ex cadres were discussed.

However, many civil servants are still unsatisfied with the way the CSB has reconsidered the cases. According to the of ficer, it appears as if the CSB has tried to dodge the apex court by handling the cases `under the old OM`. They believe that the amendment to the assessment form of the 2014 OM was made a day before the CSB meeting, and add that this casts a shadow of doubt on the integrity of the process.

Several civil servants claim that in 2015 they were passed over for promotion to the next grade even after securing the minimum required 70 per cent marks on their PERs and TERs. These civil servants hadthen gone on to challenge the CSB`s decision in court.

However, a senior officer who was in the CSB`s June 2017 meeting has rejected these claims. He explained that the Establishment Division, in accordance with court directions, had removed the five marks assigned for integrity.

Many believe that this means the case will, once again, end in litigation, the of ficer said.

One of the civil servants passed over for promotion in 2015, told Dawn that the apex court`s directions required the CSB to reconsider all the cases in order of seniority, and to promote those who had secured the minimum required 70pc marks on their PERs and TERs till available vacancies were exhausted.

He maintained that the apex court`s directions implied that the CSB, af ter exhausting available vacancies, was required to defer the remaining civil servants even if they had been promoted in 2015.

He added that the Supreme Court had directed the CSB to stop awarding 15 marks in eight subjective criteria based on personal knowledge of the civil servants`dossiers.

The `14 OM required the CSB to award 15 marks in eight categories `as known to the Board members`. After the apex court`s judgement, the Establishment Division changed this to `as known to the Board members primarily based on dossier/documentary evidence`.

The officer explains the word`primarily` implied that CSB could take into consideration material other than dossiers or documentary evidence.

The word `documentary evidence` also gives CSB members room to assess officers based on reports from the Intelligence Bureau, which superior courts have already declared inadmissible in several decisions.He claims that in effect, the erstwhile removal of five marks had been adjusted in the 15 marks of eight categories as the CSB could continue to mark of ficers low and pass them over for promotion. The officer argues that if it is not reviewed, the Establishment Division`s decision could open a new spate of litigation in the near future.