Politics has ravaged almost every system. The process of the promotion of bureaucrats is no exception. Playing politics to promote favoured bureaucrats is akin to playing with the administrative future of the country. On December 9, Prime Minster (PM) Shehbaz Sharif approved the recommendations of the Central Selection Board (CSB) for the promotions of officers from all groups as well as ex-cadre officers in Grade 20 and Grade 21. The CSB held its meeting from August 10 to August 15. Later on, the Establishment Division sent the CSB’s recommendations to the PM office for final approval. Unfortunately, the process of recommendations remained fraught with certain issues. First, in the name of minutely reviewing the minutes of the CSB meeting, the PM office took more than two-and-a-half months to approve the recommendations. The question is this: under what law can the PM office review the recommendations of the CSB? Second, the PM office changed the recommendations of superseding some officers into deferment. The question is the same: under what law can the PM office override the recommendations? The broader question is this: Is the PM office invested with supra-CSB powers to approve certain recommendations and disapprove certain other recommendations? What is the power of supra-scrutiny the PM office has acquired under the constitution? The political affiliation of a bureaucrat infuses insecurity in the bureaucrats who try to be politically neutral. In simple words, the act of supra-scrutiny means that the PM office has its own agenda to fulfil. The PM office is not run by robots; it is run by the bureaucrats. The same is the case with the CSB. It means that the bureaucrats sitting in the PM office do not approve of the views of the bureaucrats sitting in the positions of the CSB. The tragedy is that, under military rule (which could be direct or indirect), retired captains, who had joined the bureaucracy under the quota system, were encouraged in both promotions and postings. During civilian rule, blue-eyed bureaucrats are favoured for both promotions and postings. The double whammy is detrimental to the bureaucrats who tend to stay neutral and follow laid down procedures and laws. It is understandable that the incumbent government, represented by the coalition of political parties constituting the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), is encumbered with the desire to perform. It is, however, unjustified that the PDM carries its list of promotions (and postings) of the bureaucrats. The PM office seems to have been amenable to the wishes of the PDM to promote and post the bureaucrats of its liking. Even if the previous government had stepped in the recommendations of the CSB, the subsequent government should not do the same in the name of correcting the wrong. The practice (or malpractice) continues and gets solidified as a norm. Nevertheless, the (mal-) practice harms the bureaucracy, which gets polarized and starts picking up political bosses to secure the future. The challenge emerges for the bureaucrats who want to stay neutral to serve the country. The discussion brings a reader to other questions: if the CSB recommendations are unreliable, what is the purpose of having the CSB at all? What is the rationale for nudging the CSB into undertaking the exercise of scrutinising candidates for promotion, if the CSB recommendations are subject to a non-CSB perched on the high office called the PM office? There is another dimension of the issue, the promotion of bureaucrats. It is said that the CSB did two things: first, it lowered the bar of integrity for promotions; and second, it recommended superseding certain bureaucrats. No one asked the CSB the reasons for compromising the bar of integrity. The PM office remained concerned with only the issue of superseding certain bureaucrats, who had given a presentation to the PM on the issue. The PM considered the decision of superseding some bureaucrats unfair, and hence, issued orders to the CSB to change the supersession part of promotions into deferment and go ahead with the rest of the promotions. The decision of who should be promoted or who should not be ping-pongs between the CSB and the PM office. Between these two extremes, at loss are those bureaucrats who serve the country with utmost integrity, and who remain politically neutral. This type of bureaucrat is required to serve the country, but their number is fast receding owing to the ills of both the CSB and the PM office. In a way, both the CSB and the PM office are infusing insecurity in the bureaucrats of integrity and neutrality, thereby rendering the bureaucratic system dysfunctional. The bureaucratic system has come to pass, where it is known if a bureaucrat is politically affiliated or not. The political affiliation of a bureaucrat infuses insecurity in the bureaucrats who try to be politically neutral. Similarly, it is also difficult to hide one’s inefficiency, ineptitude, and dubious integrity. By lowering the quality bar, when the bureaucrats who are otherwise unfit for promotion are promoted, the bureaucrats who are conscious of integrity and performance are dispirited. The need is to reform the promotion system of the bureaucrats. Reforms must include provisions for encouraging politically neutral and performance-oriented bureaucrats to higher positions. A similar formula must be evolved for their postings. The writer can be reached at qaisarrashid @yahoo.com.