2025 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J.

The instant constitutional petition filed by the petitioner sunder Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), carries the following relief;

1. The re-advertisement dated 25.12.2024 published in daily newspaper Jung Quetta by respondent No.4 in respect of appointment of C-Level Positions in QESCO is in violation of guideline issued by Government of Pakistan Finance Division Central Monitoring Unit dated 15.08.2024 is liable to be cancelled and re-advertised.

2. The re-advertisement dated 25.12.2024 published in daily newspaper Jung Quetta by respondent No.4 is in violation of BOD minutes 219th decision, in respect of C-Level positions.

3. After declaring so the respondents be directed to re-advertise the post of C-Level Position by hiring headhunting-firm through expression of interest under the PPRA Rules and adopting all the guidelines of Government of Pakistan Finance Division, Central Monitoring Unit dated 15.08.2024 be adopted in appointment of C Level Positions in order to enhance the governance, transparency and operation efficiency. 4 Any other relief deems fit and proper may also be granted."

2. Condensed, but relevant facts essential for disposal of the instant petition are that respondent No.4 vide advertisement bearing PID(Q) No.344/23 dated 23.05.2024 invited applications for various C-Level positions in the Quetta Electric Supply Company ("QESCO") for which certain qualification and experience was laid down. Per petitioner, applications were received for the said posts, but hardly any of the candidate had the requisite minimum experience of fifteen (15) years in the Energy and Power sector, however, the HR Committee of Board of Directors ("BoD") of QESCO ignored the said conditions and conducted the interviews on 1st and 2nd November, 2024 by violating the guidelines issued by Finance Division Government of Pakistan Central Monitoring Unit vide letter dated 15.08.2024. It is further case of the petitioner that the HR committee of BoD QESCO placed their recommendations for approval of C-Level positions before the 219th meeting of BoD, wherein it was observed that none of the aspirants possessed relevant experience of fifteen (15) years, except for the post of Chief Technical Advisor, however, the BoD resolved the said issue and directed to re-advertise the C-level positions. Subsequently, respondent No.4 re-advertised the C-level position vide advertisement bearing PID (Q)261/24 dated 25.12.2024, however, according to the petitioner the relevant experience in Energy and Power Sector and guidelines of Finance Division Monitoring Unit dated 15.08.2024 were once again ignored, whereby it was directed that in respect of C-Level positions, the board may outsource the process of inviting application to a head-hunting-firm, hence this petition.

3. In response to notices issued by this Court, respondents Nos.1 and 2 to 4 filed their parawise comments, contesting the petition on legal as well as factual premises.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the re-advertisement made by respondent No.4 is in utter violation of QESCO's BoD 219th meeting held on 16.12.2024 and Finance Divisions guidelines dated 15.08.2024, whereby appointment in respect of C-Level positions has been directed to be made through a head-hunting-firm, but the respondents ignored such aspect of the matter and once again re-advertised the posts by violating the said guidelines, thus requested that the process of appointment merits to be stopped. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 4 strenuously opposed the contentions so put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and urged that the appointment was being carried out in accordance with the Finance Divisions guidelines of 2024 and QESCO's BoD 219th meeting. Maintained further that the BoD has been mandated to carry out appointment process under the State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act of 2023, thus the second advertisement was made after soliciting approval from BoD, wherein requisite qualification and experience was also mentioned in the re-advertisement dated 25.12.2024, thus submitted that neither there any violation of guidelines of 2024 and nor of QESCO's BoD 219th meeting, henceforth, requested for dismissal of the petition.

5. Valuable arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and available record thoroughly perused.

6. Undeniably, QESCO is state-owned enterprise and the appointments are governed by the State Owned Enterprises (C-Level Appointments) Guide lines of 2024. The mainstay in the petition is that under Step 2 sub-clause (iv) of the guidelines of 2024, the board may outsource the process of inviting applications to a head-hunting-firm requiring it to recommend a shortlist of candidates, however, per petitioner respondent No.3 failed to adhere to the guidelines ibid and made the publication of the advertisement on its own instead of outsourcing the process to a head-hunting-firm. On the other hand, stance of respondents Nos.2 to 4 is that the guidelines of 2024 though suggests that for appointment of C-Level positions, the process may be carried out through a head-hunting-firm, but such directions are discretionary as the BoD has the authority to relax the rules for various reasons. For ease of reference, sub-clause (iv) of Step 2 of the guidelines of 2024 is facsimile hereunder; "iv. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Board 'may' outsource the process inviting applications to a head-hunting-firm requiring it to recommend a short list of candidates." [Emphasis added]

7. Bare reading of clause ibid manifests that the guidelines are directory in nature, which may be deviated by the BoD, obviously for justifiable reasons and compelling circumstances, but not otherwise. In the parawise comments, respondent No.1 submitted that under the guidelines of 2024, the BoD of the QESCO has been mandated for appointment in respect of C-Level positions and that respondents Nos.2 to 4, while giving reasons for skipping the process of appointment through a head-hunting-firm came-up with the plea that publication for re-advertisement was made in respect of C-Level positions in accordance with the guidelines of Finance Divisions Central Monitoring Unit dated 15.08.2024 and BoD of QESCO 219th meeting held on 16.12.2024 as in earlier advertisement, none of the candidates had the minimum requisite experience, thus the BoD of QESCO in its 219th meeting, while giving approval of Agenda No. 10 made the following decision, which reads as under; "Decision Point: BoD RESOLVED and approved to re-advertise the C-Level positions with the criteria that candidates having 16 years of education in the relevant field with 15 years of post qualification experience. Candidates having power sector experience should be given preference"

8. Clearly, the BoD QESCO in its 219th neither made any direction for carrying out the appointment process through a headhunting-firm nor did violate the guidelines of 2024, whereafter in compliance thereof respondent No.4 re-advertised the C-Level positions on 25.12.2024 in accordance with approval accorded by the BoD QESCO.

9. Based on the cautious consideration of the above points, it is not mandatory for a state-owned enterprise to a hire a third partyhead-hunting-firm for appointment of C-Level positions as the BoD of QESCO itself has the mandate to make appointments as per their decision. In the subsequent advertisement dated 25.12.2024, it was mentioned that candidates must have relevant qualification and experience and that an aspirant having experience in power sector would be preferred. That apart, the petitioner has failed to establish any malice on the part of the BoD, while making decision for making appointment on their own. Even otherwise, the appointments are not being made in a clandestine manner, but by open merit through inviting applications countrywide, which is sign of healthy competition and transparency, while graduating the scale of participation, culminating into merit based appointments.

10. Admittedly, the BoD is the top governing body in a company, responsible for supervising, management, guiding corporate strategy, and ensuring accountability and compliance, which exercise its powers in coordination with the government polices. Moreso, it is the prerogative of the employer to relax the requisite qualification and other terms, which are otherwise based on business strategy, HR policies and progression plans.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the petition being shorn of merits is dismissed with no order as to cost. UN/117/Bal Petition dismissed.