2023 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

GULZAR AHMED, C.J.

Muhammad Imran, Petitioner in C.P. No. 3431/2021 and Respondent No. 5 in C.P. No. 3633/2021 (the petitioner) was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Public Sector. Generation Holding Company Limited (GHCL). Muhammad Sajan Panhwar, Respondent No.1 in both C.Ps. (the respondent) claiming himself to be the Markazi Secretary General of WAPDA Employees Pegham Union, working in Jamshoro Power Company Limited (GENCO-I), filed a constitution petition in the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad (the High Court:) alleging that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of GHCL. In the constitution petition the respondent has taken a plea that petitioner was Fellow Member of the institute of Cost and Management Accountants and was not a qualified Engineer to undertake and perform the work of the Chief Executive Officer of GHCL, whose job was to produce electricity and thereafter, to sale the same to the National Grid for onward distribution to the public. The High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the provision of Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 (the Rules of 2013) and the Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015 (the Guidelines of 2015). In the Guidelines it is mentioned that the candidate shall possess a Graduate Degree from well-reputed institute or such other professional qualification relating to the principle line of business of the public sector company, including manufacturing, mining, science, technology, agriculture, social science, or any other field commensurate to the job. Besides this, a candidate could be a member of a recognized body of professional accountants or a recognized businessman or professional with a postgraduate degree in business administration or public administration or finance or commerce or business that of mechanical/electrical engineering. The High Court in the impugned judgment found such appointment of the petitioner to be not in accordance with law and while setting aside the Notification of appointment of the petitioner dated 04.01.2018, directed the Federal Government to reinitiate the process of appointment of new Chief Executive Officer of GHCL.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that neither in the Rules of 2013 nor in the Guidelines of 2015, there is any provision for the Chief Executive Officer to hold a Degree in the field of Electrical or Mechanical Engineering and such has been wrongly construed. He contends that the petitioner was qualified to be appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of GHCL and there was no illegality in the same and the High Court was not justified in setting aside his appointment as such. He further contends that the law relied upon in the impugned judgment has apparently, no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, the same. The appeals shall be heard on the available record but the parties are allowed to file additional documents, if any, within a period of one month. As the matter relates to service, the office is directed to fix the same expeditiously preferably, after three months. C.M.As. Nos. 7040 and 6410 of 2021

4. The operation of the impugned judgment is suspended. MWA/M-58/SC Leave granted.