LHC Overturns Supersession of Two Senior Bureaucrats
The Lahore High Court has set aside the supersession of two senior civil servants, ruling that promotion decisions cannot be built on vague impressions, unverified claims or informal allegations. The verdict, issued in Lahore and updated on Sunday, gives fresh weight to the principle that government officers must be assessed through documented records and lawful procedures.
Justice Khalid Ishaq allowed two connected constitutional petitions filed by retired Captain Muhammad Usman and Aamir Aqiq Khan. Both officers had challenged official letters issued in August 2025 through which they were denied progression to higher grades after the Central Selection Board assessed their cases.
The dispute centred on how marks were awarded under the Civil Servants Promotion Rules, 2019. Under the framework, a large portion of an officer’s evaluation comes from documented service history, while the selection board also carries discretionary marks for broader assessment, including conduct, integrity and suitability.
According to the judgment, both petitioners had strong service records, with performance evaluations described as either outstanding or very good. Despite those records, the board gave them very low marks in its discretionary assessment, leaving them short of the required benchmark for promotion to BPS-21 and BPS-20.
The petitioners’ lawyers argued that the board had relied on broad and unsupported remarks, including allegations about integrity, behaviour and political connections. The court rejected the idea that such serious conclusions could be made without concrete material, observing that official decision-making must be based on evidence rather than hearsay.
Justice Ishaq noted that the promotion rules were designed to prevent arbitrary decisions. He held that even where the board examines personal attributes, it must still rely on official files, service dossiers and verifiable documentary material, not assumptions or generalised remarks that can damage an officer’s career.
The court also recorded that the federal government was given opportunities to justify the allegations against the officers. However, the material presented before the court reportedly did not contain adverse findings strong enough to support the deductions made by the selection board.
The ruling is significant for Pakistan’s bureaucracy because promotions to senior grades shape the leadership of key ministries, departments and public institutions. If officers can be blocked through unexplained discretion, the judgment suggests, the promotion process risks undermining transparency, morale and confidence within the civil service.
The case also reflects a wider debate over administrative fairness in Pakistan, where civil servants often challenge supersession decisions on the grounds of arbitrary scoring or lack of due process. Courts have repeatedly stressed that while promotion is not an automatic right, the right to be considered fairly remains central to lawful governance.
The Lahore High Court has now directed the federation to reconsider both officers for promotion in an impartial and lawful manner. The next step will be a fresh review of their cases, with the government expected to ensure that any decision is supported by record-based reasoning and clear application of the promotion rules.