Selection criteria

2025 PLC(CS) 182 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art.199Appointment of Vice-Chancellor in Public Sector Universities of PunjabSelection criteriaPolicy decision of the GovernmentInterference by High CourtScope

Selection criteria generally reflects a policy decision of the Government and in absence of any violation of constitutional guarantee or patent illegality, such policy decision could not be annulled by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

2024 PLC(CS) 556 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.24-ACivil service

Policy Guidelines for Selection, Appointment and Posting of Trade and Investment Officers (BS-18 to BS-21) in Pakistan Trade Missions Abroad, dated 03-07-2023

Selection criteria

Non-speaking order

Station of posting

Determination

Petitioner / candidate was in service of Pakistan and was aggrieved of allocation of place of foreign posting by Interviewing Board

Validity

Candidates were provided options to give their preferences in the Policy and that did not create vested right in them per se to be allocated that particular station

Where a candidate had qualified on merit and his preference of station was available, he had legitimate expectation that such option would be granted to him

Undertaking executed by petitioner / candidate did not debar him for asserting his right to be posted at station of his second preference

Reasoning put forward by Authorities which formed basis for recommendations of the Board did not surface anywhere in minutes of meeting

Such minutes and recommendations of the Board were defective and also violative of S. 24-A of General Clauses Act

High Court declared that recommendations made by Interview Board, to the extent of recommendation of appointment of petitioner / candidate at Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), were in violation of the Policy

High Court directed Federal Government to act strictly in accordance with the Policy

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2023 PLC(CS) 205 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.8Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionSubstitution of findingsDirector General, appointment and salary packageSelection criteria

Petitioner assailed appointment of respondent as Director General of Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan and claimed himself to be a better candidate

Petitioner also assailed that salary package given to respondent was exorbitant and not approved by Federal Government

Validity

High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review could not substitute its findings with those of a tribunal or a selection authority that had carried out a comparative analysis of credentials of candidates for appointment against an advertised post

Petitioner and respondent were not even in close contest

Evaluation committee awarded more marks to respondent who was on top in merit list, whereas petitioner was awarded less marks and was low in the merit list

Petitioner was not among the three candidates who had fared the best out of the contestants

Claim of petitioner that he was the most suitable candidate for the post of Director General was not tenable

Salary package for respondent determined by Board of Governors of Hydrocarbon Institute of Pakistan was to be subject to approval of Federal Government in terms of S.8(1) of Hydrocarbon Development Institute of Pakistan Act, 2006

High Court directed that if Federal Government would not approve salary package determined by Board of Directors or was less beneficial for respondent, the salary and other privileges already drawn by him should be accordingly adjusted

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2022 SCMR 694 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Recruitment processSelection criteriaScope

Mere submitting of an application for joining recruitment process in response to an advertisement did not create any vested right to claim the job

Before finalizing a fit candidate by the competent authority or Selection Board, the testimonials and antecedents of each candidate were to be considered in accordance with the prescribed benchmarks but in order to maintain level playing field and even-handed competition amongst all candidates, the qualification and competency in all fairness should be considered and adjudged in accordance with the qualification notified to apply in the advertisement and to extend any preference or favourable treatment, the settled terms and conditions could not be disregarded

Selection process should be within the specified spectrum and attributes (mentioned in the advertisement) and breach of such protocol attracted the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which sought to rescue and ventilate the sufferings of candidates who are under the bona fide belief that their applications for appointment would be considered (in terms of the qualifications notified in the advertisement).

2022 PLC(CS) 990 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Recruitment processSelection criteriaScope

Mere submitting of an application for joining recruitment process in response to an advertisement did not create any vested right to claim the job

Before finalizing a fit candidate by the competent authority or Selection Board, the testimonials and antecedents of each candidate were to be considered in accordance with the prescribed benchmarks but in order to maintain level playing field and even-handed competition amongst all candidates, the qualification and competency in all fairness should be considered and adjudged in accordance with the qualification notified to apply in the advertisement and to extend any preference or favourable treatment, the settled terms and conditions could not be disregarded

Selection process should be within the specified spectrum and attributes (mentioned in the advertisement) and breach of such protocol attracted the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which sought to rescue and ventilate the sufferings of candidates who are under the bona fide belief that their applications for appointment would be considered (in terms of the qualifications notified in the advertisement).

2013 PLC(CS) 99 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional jurisdictionScopeRecruitment policySelection criteria

Petitioners were aggrieved of change in selection criteria by government regarding selection of officials for Peacekeeping Missions of United Nations

Validity

Policy making was the prerogative of government and High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction could not make policy for government

If policy itself was not supported by any law or rule or was based on discrimination, then High Court had jurisdiction to examine the same

Government had the authority to refuse sending any officer for United Nations Peacekeeping Mission

If government had decided to send officers, then opportunity of fair competition could not be denied, irrespective of the fact that any officer was a repeater or fresh candidate, though the United Nations, in criteria had held that preference should be given to repeaters

If object of government in changing the policy was to provide opportunity to fresh candidates, then they should improve quality of education and standard of training imparted to police officers and opportunity could not be provided by depriving others from participating in competition

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declared fresh policy letter/guidelines of government as illegal and void

High Court declared that all petitioners eligible to appear in test in accordance with criteria laid down by United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, would have the right to participate in the competition

Petition was allowed accordingly.