BEFORE THE HONORABLE FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL, ISLAMABAD.

APPEAL NO.01(R)CS-2021

1. Amjad Rasheed, Assistant (BS-16), Directorate General Civil Defence,

Islamabad

Applicant

Versus

1. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of

Pakistan, Islamabad.
2. Director General, Directorate General Civil Defence, Islamabad
3. Establishment Division, through its Secretary, Government of Pakistan,
Islamabad.
4. Muhammad Yasin, Admin Officer (B&A) (BS-16), Directorate General Civil
Defence, Islamabad.
5. Anwar Ali, Admn Officer(A&C) (BS-16), Directorate General Civil Defence,
Islamabad.

Respondents

PRE-ADMISSION COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

ON BEHALF OFRESPONDENT NO.1

A) AS AGAINST FACTS

1 The context of para-1 to the extent of his service history are

not denied. However Respondent No. 2 reserves right to call
in question the manner in which the appellant has praised
himself and the self-praise is no recommendation

2 Contents of para-2 are denied. As a matter of fact overall

performance of appellant is not satisfactory. He lacks
adequate depth to discharge office business smoothly.

3 It is stated in reply to the para-3 for the correction of record

that as a matter of fact he was allowed current charge of the
post of Admn Officer one time on account of some service
exigency.
4 The contents of para-4 are denied. As per the existing
departmental recruitment rules , the post of Admn Officer
(BS-16) is to be filled in by 100% promotion as under:-
50% for Assistants
50% for Stenographers (now re-designated as APS)
Kindly refer Annex-A. This is not a sole precedent of
Stenographer quota for promotion as Admn Officer. Other
ministries are also follow the same practice as advent from
Annex-B
5 The contents of para-5 are denied. Applicant has again tried
to mislead the authorities in light of the rule position as
reflected at Annex-A, there was nothing illegal & unlawful on
the respondent No.2. The respondent No.5 was in fact
promoted in the same grade i.e. BPS-16. It is worth to
mention here that the appellant is himself serving in BPS-16.

6 The contents of para-6 are denied. As already submitted

above, promotion of the respondent No.5 was made in
accordance with the rules which are quite clear thus there
was at all no illegality involved in the process, insofar as
respondent No.5 is concerned.

7 It is stated in reply to the para – 7 and for correction of record

that at the time of promotion of respondent No. 5 the appellant
was not at all the senior most among the Assistants.
Therefore no right of appellant was violated.

8 It is stated in reply to the content of para-8 that the referred

departmental appeal of the appellant was rejected after due
consideration under rules

(B) AS AGAINST GROUNDS

(a) It is stated in reply to the clause (a) that in the light of rules position
already submitted above promotion of the respondent No. 5 was lawful.
b Reply same as clause (a)
c It is stated in reply to the clause (c) that here the appellant has called in
question the length of service of respondent No. 5 instead of his fitness
for promotion. However contrary to the version of appellant the
respondent No. 5 had prescribed length of service required for
promotion as Admn Officer. Thus a promotion was legal.

d It is stated in reply to the clause (d) that as already submitted above

(replies to facts) that at the time of promotion of respondent No. 5 the
applicant was not at all senior among the Assistants.

e It is stated in reply to the clause (e) that as already submitted above

(replies to facts) that respondent No.5 was promoted because of having
such provision in the rules, therefore question of nepotism and
favoritism does not arise.

f It is stated in reply to the clause (f) that the appellant has been failed to
quote any rule under which he is entitled for promotion from the date of
seat lying vacant.

g It is stated in reply to the clause (g) that the quoted judgment of apex
court is not applicable in this case.

h It is stated in reply to the clause (h) that as already submitted above

 (replies to facts) that respondent No. 5 was promoted in accordance
with the prevailing promotion policy thus none of the right of appellant
were ever infringed.

i It is stated in reply to the clause (i) that it was not at all the case of Audi
Alteram Partam it is because he was afforded opportunity to be heard in
person besides preferring departmental appeal that was ultimately
dismissed in circumstances

j It is stated in reply to the clause (j) that rules quoted there in are not
relevant in the instant case.

k,l,m It is stated in reply to the clause (k) that in the light of factual position
narrated above clause (k) (L) & (m) does not require any further reply.

n It is stated in reply to the clause (n) that right of promotion was not
denied in case of appellant. He can be promoted on his turn subject to
eligibility.

o It is stated in reply to the clause (o) that as it has already been

submitted above (replies to facts) that existing departmental recruitment
rules prescribed 50% quota to the Stenographers (now re-designated as
APS) thus awarding promotion to the respondent No. 5 as Admn Officer
was not at all illegal.

(C) ON PRAYER CLAUSE

It is stated on the prayer clause for the kind consideration of the
Honourable Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad as under:-

(a) The instant appeal filed by Mr. Amjad Rasheed, is prayed to be

dismissed in circumstance being devoid of any substances.

(b) In view of the facts narrated above no such action (as prayed by
the appellant) is called for.

Respondent No.02
and on Behlaf of
Respondent No.1