Employee Failure to meet the Criteria of “very good” ratings for 5 years in Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) --- Islamabad High Court, Islamabad dismissed Writ Petition filed by Employee

Islamabad 18-12-2024: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by Dr. Muhammad Hamid Ali, a BS-20 officer of the Trade and Commerce Group, challenging his exclusion from the selection process for the post of Trade and Investment Officer (TIO) in Pakistan’s Trade Missions abroad. Mr. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb delivered the verdict, finding the Petitioner ineligible due to deficiencies in his Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs).

The Petitioner alleged irregularities in the selection process conducted by the Ministry of Commerce. He claimed that despite passing the written test with 64.5% marks, he was not interviewed. The Ministry cited his failure to meet the eligibility requirement of having complete PERs for the past five years with a minimum average grading of “very good.”

The Court analyzed the Petitioner’s PERs and found several discrepancies:

1. The Petitioner’s PER for 42 days (04.05.2020–16.06.2020) was initially unrecorded, causing a gap in his five-year evaluation record.
2. A PER grading him as “outstanding” for 52 days (18.06.2020–05.08.2020) was deemed irregular under Para-2.32 of the PER Guide, which requires reports covering periods shorter than three months to be excluded.

The Court had earlier directed the Ministry of Commerce to rectify the missing PER. Upon recording it, the Petitioner was graded “average,” reducing his overall PER average and rendering him ineligible for the TIO position.

The Petitioner argued that:

1. The Ministry unfairly scrutinized his PERs compared to other candidates.
2. His “outstanding” grading for 2020 was downgraded arbitrarily.
3. Under Para-3.10(iii) of the PER Guide, once recorded, PER remarks cannot be altered retroactively.

The Court rejected these claims, stating:

1. The Petitioner failed to meet the eligibility criteria set by the Policy Guidelines for TIO Selection (03.07.2023).
2. The deficiencies in his PERs were validly raised and addressed by the Ministry.
3. Challenges to PER evaluations fall outside the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, which restricts judicial review of administrative service matters.

The Court dismissed the petition, observing that the Petitioner was not entitled to relief due to his failure to meet the selection criteria. It further advised him to seek administrative remedies for the adverse remarks recorded in his PER under Chapter IV of the PER Guide.

Powered by Froala Editor