1995SCMR1817 (PLP)

Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate Supreme Court alongwith Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. K.G. Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.‑‑‑The method of recruitment of Naib‑Tehsisdars under section 5 (1) of the West Pakistan Naib Tehsildari and Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as the Rules) which have been adopted by the Government of N: W.F.P., is as under:‑‑ I.

(a) sixty per cent. of the vacancies shall be filled in by initial recruitment through the Public Service Commission of which ten per cent. shall be reserved for ex‑servicemen; and (b) the remaining vacancies shall be filled in by selection on merit from the subordinate service in the Division where the vacancies occur, preference being given to persons with settlement experience. II.

It would thus be noticed that 40 per centum of the vacancies of Naib Tehsildars are reserved for ministerial staff to be filled in on the basis of selection on merit. Two posts of Naib‑Tehsildars were available for the ministerial quota in the year, 1994 for which a list of 37 officials including the petitioner was drawn up and placed before the D.P.C. After deliberations the D.P.C. selected respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and, in consequence, a formal order was duly issued on 27‑3‑1994. Feeling aggrieved of the selection of respondents Nos.4 and 5, the petitioner made representation dated 9‑4‑1994 to the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N: W.F.P. but "it did not invoke any response and after expiry of 90 days, the petitioner invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the learned Service Tribunal, N.‑W.F.P., Peshawar" which had proved abortive on 27-10-1994.

2. The petitioner while serving as Senior Clerk in the Office of the Political Agent, Mohmand Agency was, inter alia, recommended to the Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar, for recruitment as Naib -Tehsildar for the first time on 31‑10‑1985 and for the second time on 23‑8‑1986. Vide order dated 11‑11‑1990 passed by respondent No.2 the petitioner was appointed as Naib‑Tehsildar on acting charge basis which was later on modified on 13‑6‑1991 and the petitioner was promoted as Naib -Tehsildar on ad hoc basis as a stop‑gap arrangement.

3. Prima facie, there are no minutes of the deliberations of the Selection Committee or any record to show that the discretion exercised by it for determining comparative merit of the candidates was meaning fully standardised. The ratio in the case of Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 SC 14) referred to by the petitioner's counsel was that when a legislative bodies delegate discretionary power without meaningful standards, administrators should develop standards at the earliest feasible time, and then, as circumstances permit, should further confine their own discretion through manifest principles and rules.

4. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is granted to consider whether selection on merit from amongst the members of the ministerial service to the post of Naib‑Tehsildar under rule 5 of the Rules is valid without manifestly laying down criteria for the comparative evaluation of the merits of candidates and further that in view of availability of a sufficient number of eligible competing candidates, relaxation in upper age limit granted to respondent No.4 is not covered by the Delegation of Powers (Relaxation of Age Rules, 1961, read with N.‑W.F.P. Service and General Administration Circular Letter No.SOR‑I (S&GAD) 1‑117/91 (c) dated the 12th October, 1993. AA./K‑271/S Leave granted.