ISLAMABAD: While hearing the plea of retired CSS officer Ms Sabiha Hameed regarding promotion discrimination, Supreme Court found a clear violation of the principle of natural justice, “Audi Alteram Partem,” and directed the Establishment Division to substantively reconsider her promotion case.
In general, the principles of natural justice ensure that no one is condemned unheard, no one acts as a judge in their own case, and all decisions follow fair and due process. A two-member bench of the Justices Munib Akhtar and Irfan Saadat Khan rule in a six-page verdict that the Central Selection Board (CSB) failed to provide a meaningful reconsideration of Ms Hameed case as previously ordered by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), specifically noting the lack of a fair hearing before she was awarded marks below the promotion threshold.
The primary legal question was whether the CSB and the FST erred in dismissing the petitioner’s claim for promotion after the FST had previously declared her prima facie eligible. Specifically, the Court examined if the CSB’s reliance on old data and its failure to provide a hearing before awarding low marks (63.30% against a 70% threshold) constituted a violation of the petitioner’s rights and the FST’s earlier directions.
Under civil service law and the principles of natural justice, while promotion is not a vested right , an officer has a right to be considered for promotion in a serious and meaningful manner. Besides, judicial and quasi-judicial findings (like those of the FST) regarding eligibility must be displaced only by substantial, cogent, and unequivocal grounds. An ‘opportunity of hearing’ is a fundamental procedural requirement before drawing adverse inferences that affect a candidate’s career.
The Supreme Court observed that the CSB, in its August 2023 meeting, simply endorsed its previous findings from 2013 and 2014 recommendations the FST had already found to be not in accordance with the law.
The bench pointed out the Additional Attorney General could provide no record showing the petitioner was ever informed of or heard regarding the lesser marks assigned to her. By ignoring the FST’s finding of ‘prima facie eligibility’ and failing to provide a fresh, independent evaluation, the department failed to implement the judicial directions in spirit.
Setting aside the FST’s 2023 order in response to the appeal, the bench remanded the matter back to the department, directing the CSB to hold a meeting within two months to reconsider Ms Hamid’s case substantively, explicitly mandating that she be provided an opportunity of hearing before any final decision is made.
