Dr. MUHAMMAD HAMID ALI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Guide to Performance Evaluation (2004), Paras

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Dr. MUHAMMAD HAMID ALI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Guide to Performance Evaluation (2004), Paras. 2.32, 2.44 & 3.10(iii)---Policy Guidelines for Selection, Appointment and Posting of Trade and Investment Officers (BS-18 to BS-20) in Pakistan's Trade Missions Abroad, dated 03.07.2023, Para.1(d)---Selection Process---Irregular Performance Evaluation Report (PER)---Eligibility criteria---Determination---Recording of PER by the reporting officer for the period when he did not have capacity/authority as a reporting officer---Legality---Powers of the Countersigning Officer to substitute his initial remarks of "Outstanding" with "Average"---Scope---Petitioner was held ineligible to participate in the competitive/selection process owing to his irregular/incomplete PER for the year 2020---Contention of the petitioner was that since his PER for a period of less than 03 months was reported upon by the reporting officer and endorsed by the countersigning officer, thus, at the belated stage such irregularity could not be made basis for disallowing the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the post of Trade and Investment Officer (TIO), and the remarks once recorded in PER could not be altered----Validity---Deficiency or an irregularity in an officer's PER could be detected and questioned at any stage if it did not fulfill the requirements of the law and/or the PER Guide---Mere fact that the petitioner's countersigning officer for the period between 04.05.2020 and 05.08.2020 had countersigned the petitioner's PER on 16.02.2021 for the said period would not attach sanctity to such PER as reporting officer of the petitioner for a period of 52 days had also recorded the petitioner's PER for the 42 days when he had not remained his reporting officer---Such an evaluation of the reporting officer could not have formed the basis for the countersigning officer to give an informed evaluation of the petitioner for the whole period of 94 days---When the countersigning officer had the benefit of the petitioner's evaluation carried out on 08.01.2024 by the reporting officer for the period between 04.05.2020 to 16.06.2020, he could in terms of paragraph 2.44 of the PER Guide agree with the evaluation carried out by either reporting officer---Countersigning officer's evaluation of the petitioner for the said period synchronized with that of his reporting officer for the period between 04.05.2020 and 16.06.2020---Recording of petitioner's PER dated 08.01.2024 for the period between 04.05.2020 and 16.06.2020 made his selection as Trade and Investment Officer out of the question as he was considered not to have satisfied the eligibility criteria of having a minimum average of "very good" PERs for the last five years---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLC(CS) 706 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case Dr. MUHAMMAD HAMID ALI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN arts. 212 & 199---Guide to Performance Evaluation (2004), Chap. IV---Civil service---adverse remarks---Expunction---Jurisdiction of High Court barred under art. 212 of the Constitution---against the adverse remarks recorded by reporting and countersigning officers, the petitioner was at liberty to apply to the competent authority in terms of Chapter IV of the PER Guide for their expunction and it was inappropriate to examine whether the said officers had any tangible basis for recording such remarks as High Court's jurisdiction was barred under art. 212 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Dr. MUHAMMAD HAMID ALI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Guide to Performance Evaluation (2004), Paras — 2025 PLC(CS) 706 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC