Eligibility criteria

Briefly, the petitioners, being aspirants for appointment to the posts of Chairmen (BPS-20) of various Educational Boards challenged the shortlisting and recommendation of private respondents made through a recruitment process contending irregularities in the procedure adopted by the authorities; the controversy centered on the legality and validity of the recruitment process for appointment of Chairmen of Educational Boards and the scope of judicial review in such selection process

Held: More than hundred candidates were interviewed in nine batches and those who secured more than fifty marks were recommended by Search Committee for the Position of Chairmen in Educational / Technical Boards

This Tabulation showed that the private respondents had scored more marks than the petitioners and thus the private respondents were recommended for the said posts

A proposal was made that whether candidates from the waiting list be selected in order to expedite the entire process, or fresh advertisement was given, and it had been decided that these two vacant posts were to be filled through re-advertisement in order to select best suitable candidates

This latest decision of respondents also nullified the objection of the petitioners' side, that in such a competitive process no waiting list was required to be prepared

Constitution of the Search Committee Act, 2022 was promulgated with the sole object to make appointments in public sector Universities in a transparent manner

Since underlying object of the Boards in terms of the governing law was, inter alia, to regulate, develop and control Intermediate and Secondary Education; recognize and de-recognize educational institutions, grant certificates, diplomas to persons who had passed examinations; therefore, it was necessary to headhunt and select the best suitable candidates as Chairmen of the Board, who could ensure the accomplishment of the above statutory functions of the Universities and Board Department

Hence, no illegality was committed by the Committee formed under the above Act of 2022, the composition whereof was mentioned under Subsection (2) of S.3, that included, the Chairman, Sindh Higher Education Commission

Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Joint reading of the Notification in question which approved the 15 years relaxation in the upper age limit and Regulation 0612 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2006 ('2006 Regulations'), showed that the Government of Sindh could only relax the age of eligible candidates at its discretion through an Age Relaxation Order which could be issued collectively or specifically for any candidate

Powers to authorize age relaxation for up to 2 years was vested in the Secretary of the concerned department while the Chief Secretary was authorized to accord age relaxation for up to 5 years only which was now raised up to 15 years

Even in the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 ('APT Rules'), the maximum age relaxation limit was 10 years which was by itself highly unjustified and excessive, and rather than curtailing this period by setting a well thought-out benchmark and being mindful of the norms of reasonableness and proportionality, the Government of Sindh, without any justifiable rhyme or reason, extended the age relaxation up to 15 years

In the context of the recruitment in issue, the maximum age was 30 years; if one added 15 years more, then a person, if selected for the job, would join his duty under the age of 45 years and would retire upon attaining the age of 60 years

Meaning that after just 15 years' tenure of service, he would be entitled to claim huge pensionary benefits, including other retiring benefits, which was also discriminatory to those employees who gave their blood and sweat, and toiled and served the government for more than 25 to 30 years and then became entitled to the pensionary and other retirement benefits

Supreme Court struck down the Notification and the Addendum by which relaxation of up to 15 years was granted in the upper age limit

Supreme Court directed that Sindh Public Service Commission should re-advertise the posts in question afresh and allow all interested candidates to participate in the competitive process

Petitions were dismissed and leave was refused.

Participation of the petitioner in the recruitment process without challenging the regulations removing the residuary restriction for other districts of Balochistan

Laches

Contention of the petitioner was that employment in Q-WASA was only restricted to residents of Quetta District

Validity

Balochistan Water and Sanitation Authority Act, 1989 (Act, 1989), extended to all cities of the province of Balochistan having population of one lac or more and to such other areas, but Act, 1989 was subsequently repealed by the Quetta Water and Sanitation Authority Act, 2004 (Act, 2004), which was extended only to the Quetta District

Under S.13(1) read with S.34(2) of the Act, 2004 the authority with prior approval of the Government had made the Quetta Water and Sanitation Authority (Employees' Service) Regulations, 2011 (Regulations)

Regulation 13 of the same provides eligibility criteria for initial appointments

In the publication for the posts it was clearly mentioned that any applicant having either local certificate or domicile certificate of province of Balochistan could apply for the vacant posts lying in Q-WASA, which was in consonance with the Regulations

Petitioners instead of challenging Regln. 13 of the Regulations or the publication for appointment on different posts, participated in the recruitment process without any objection, but subsequently when they could not succeed they assailed the recruitment process on the ground that the candidates belonging to other districts of Balochistan could not have applied for the said posts and their subsequent appointments by Q-WASA were in violation of the Act of 2004

Petitioners despite having knowledge never questioned Regln. 13, which allowed all the residents of Balochistan either having local certificate or domicile certificate to apply for the posts advertised by the Q-WASA

Present petition also suffered from laches as the Regulations were in force since, 2011 but despite knowledge the same were not challenged and only after participating in the recruitment process and remaining unsuccessful the petitioners agitated their grievance

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Powers of the Governor of Punjab to issue circular in his capacity as Chancellor determining multi-factors eligibility criteria for appointment of Deans

Scope

Existence of comprehensive legal mechanism for constitution, operations and functionality of Universities

Petitioners had challenged the legal status of the impugned Circular in the light of the relevant Statutes of University of the Engineering and Technology (UET) and University of the Punjab (PU) and the appointments of Deans in the said Universities in terms of the said Circular

Held, that under the UET Act, 1974 no power vested in the Governor Punjab in his capacity as Chancellor of UET to arbitrarily or unilaterally prescribe a criteria for the appointment of Dean of UET unless the criteria as proposed was incorporated in the Statutes or Regulations or Rules of UET in accordance with the provisions of the UET Act, 1974

Proposed criteria encapsulated in the Circular had not so far been adopted or incorporated in the relevant Statutes or Regulations or Rules of UET and as such, had no legal footing, thus, the only relevant provision of law in the field was S. 2(2) of the First Statutes of Schedule to the UET Act, 1974, which empowered the Governor Punjab as Chancellor of UET to appoint the Dean of each Faculty of UET from amongst the three senior most Professors in the Faculty for a period of three years

Discretion was structured in the manner that it was confined to consider the three senior most Professors in the Faculty

Appointment of Dean of UET was made, accordingly, and as such, there was no substance in the challenge brought to the appointment of respondent in UET

Applicable criteria for appointment of Dean in Punjab University was the same as in the case of UET, thus, challenge to the appointment of Dean in PU was also without substance

Any discretion vested in any authority by law can be further regulated and structured through delegated legislation within the ambit of applicable enactment as was proposed by the Governor Punjab through the Circular, however, no vested legal right could be asserted on its basis unless the said criteria was adopted in the relevant Statutes, Regulations or Rules of the Professors as Deans of Public Sector Universities (PSU)

No lawful mandate could be extended to any functionary to prescribe a criteria in his own wisdom in a manner not ordained by law

While appointing the Deans, the Governor Punjab followed the applicable statutory criteria and disregarded the proposed mechanism in the Circular since it did not have the force of law

Constitutional petitions challenging the appointments of Deans in UET and PU were dismissed and the one challenging the vires of the Circular was allowed, in circumstances.

Allegation of financial/management crisis in the previous tenures of some selected candidates without any specific nomination

Effect

Contention of the petitioner was that favourite candidates had been selected without even calling him for interview or issuing him a rejection letter

Validity

No question over the constitution of Search Committees or on any of their members had been raised

No specific violation of law, policy or merit was attributed to Search Committees but only vague and general allegations had been levelled by the petitioner

Advertisement for the appointments in question reflected that only short-listed/eligible candidates were to be interviewed by the respective Search Committees

None of the candidates, in whose earlier tenures universities had undergone severe financial and management crisis, had been named specifically in the petition or arguments

None of the selected candidates, who were going to retire in few days, had been specified in the petition and the advertisement itself showed the maximum age of 65 years for the applicants

Appointments of the VCs had already been made, thus, the petitioner was at liberty to exercise his right to information before the concerned forum in accordance with law and assail any such appointment on specific grounds depicting violation of any provision of law or the applicable policy while impleading the V.C. concerned

No room for a roving inquiry or fishing expedition was available to the petitioner

When petitioner was not called for interview, he filed the constitutional petition challenging the selection criteria, however, he ought to have challenged the selection criteria notified by the Government before applying for the post in question and not after having been rejected

In the absence of such timely challenge, it could be presumed that he accepted the criteria to be valid and expressed no reservation against it

V.Cs., who had earned their Ph.D. degrees from the top ranked institutions of the world, were expected that they should, while benefitting from their rich international exposure, endeavor to promote such excellence in the institutions headed by them, thus, selection criteria was not arbitrary and discriminatory but based on rational nexus with the object of classification

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Fixation of ratio between Post Graduate Doctors and Diploma Holder Doctors for appointment and promotion in Specialist Cadre

Petitioner during his service claimed promotion against the post of Chief Chest Specialist, which was regretted due to non-availability of vacancy in his cadre

Petitioner after his retirement filed constitutional petition for grant of proforma promotion concealing the factum as to rejection of his earlier claim of promotion

Validity

Promotion is not a vested right of a civil servant

Case of petitioner having been considered for promotion to the said post was regretted on account of availability of any vacancy under the Category of Diploma Holder Doctors

Petitioner instead of challenging such decision of Provincial Selection Board before competent forum/(Services Tribunal) filed constitutional petition before High Court by concealing the said decision, which, prima facie, established that petitioner had approached the High Court with unclean hands

To seek equitable relief under writ jurisdiction petitioner was to demonstrate his bona fides

Department had dealt with the petitioner in accordance with law

Petitioner failed to point out departure by respondents from rules while dealing with the case of petitioner, thus, no declaration could be granted in favour of petitioner as he had been dealt with by the Department in accordance with law

Criteria laid down by the Health Department for appointment and promotion of Specialist Cadre Doctors was well within the bounds of law, in line with statutory provisions and did not require interference

It is prerogative of the executive bodies to make rules

Courts have always respected mandate given to legislative and executive bodies to make laws and frame rules, provided that the subordinate legislation/rules are not in conflict with the statutory provisions or are person specific or based on mala fides

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner was required to first meet the eligibility criteria for the post of Police Constable as provided under the Recruitment Rules as well as Police Rules, 1934, before being appointed on a designated post, which in the case of the petitioner was lacking

Police Constable can only be appointed on merit not based on deceased/Shaheed quota as every candidate has to meet the criteria as set forth in the recruitment rules notified by the Government of Sindh for such appointment in police force

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Policy Guidelines for Selection, Appointment and Posting of Trade and Investment Officers (BS-18 to BS-20) in Pakistan's Trade Missions Abroad, dated 03.07.2023, Para.1(d)

Selection Process

Irregular Performance Evaluation Report (PER)

Eligibility criteria

Determination

Recording of PER by the reporting officer for the period when he did not have capacity/authority as a reporting officer

Legality

Powers of the Countersigning Officer to substitute his initial remarks of "Outstanding" with "Average"

Scope

Petitioner was held ineligible to participate in the competitive/selection process owing to his irregular/incomplete PER for the year 2020

Contention of the petitioner was that since his PER for a period of less than 03 months was reported upon by the reporting officer and endorsed by the countersigning officer, thus, at the belated stage such irregularity could not be made basis for disallowing the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the post of Trade and Investment Officer (TIO), and the remarks once recorded in PER could not be altered

Validity

Deficiency or an irregularity in an officer's PER could be detected and questioned at any stage if it did not fulfill the requirements of the law and/or the PER Guide

Mere fact that the petitioner's countersigning officer for the period between 04.05.2020 and 05.08.2020 had countersigned the petitioner's PER on 16.02.2021 for the said period would not attach sanctity to such PER as reporting officer of the petitioner for a period of 52 days had also recorded the petitioner's PER for the 42 days when he had not remained his reporting officer

Such an evaluation of the reporting officer could not have formed the basis for the countersigning officer to give an informed evaluation of the petitioner for the whole period of 94 days

When the countersigning officer had the benefit of the petitioner's evaluation carried out on 08.01.2024 by the reporting officer for the period between 04.05.2020 to 16.06.2020, he could in terms of paragraph 2.44 of the PER Guide agree with the evaluation carried out by either reporting officer

Countersigning officer's evaluation of the petitioner for the said period synchronized with that of his reporting officer for the period between 04.05.2020 and 16.06.2020

Recording of petitioner's PER dated 08.01.2024 for the period between 04.05.2020 and 16.06.2020 made his selection as Trade and Investment Officer out of the question as he was considered not to have satisfied the eligibility criteria of having a minimum average of "very good" PERs for the last five years

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court while analyzing the relevant legislation, including the West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, Auqaf (Federal Control) Act, 1976, Islamabad Capital Territory Waqf Properties Act, 2020, and the Islamabad Capital Territory Auqaf Employees Service Rules, 1998, (ICT Auqaf Rules) concluded that the ICT Auqaf Rules govern the terms and conditions of service for Auqaf employees in Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT)

High Court upheld the age limit of 25 years as prescribed in the advertisement, finding it to be in accordance with the ICT Auqaf Rules and permissible under the applicable rules framed under the Civil Servants Act

Constitutional petition was dismissed to that extent, in circumstance.

In the affairs of admission and examination in educational institutions, the concerned authorities are vested with the powers and jurisdiction to lay down the eligibility criteria in their own rules, regulations, or prospectus

They are independent to follow their own policy for admission, and in other affairs, therefore, the academic, administrative, and disciplinary autonomy of a university must be respected

Interference by the courts in the admission policy would give rise to glitches for the said institutions to administer the matters harmoniously and efficiently

Educational institutions are competent to manage their own affairs without any outside intervention from executive or judicial organs unless they contravene or disregard the compass of their authority or act in breach of applicable statutes or admission policies as laid down in the prospectus.

Employer may prescribe required qualifications and the preference for appointment of candidate who is best suited to his requirements

Court cannot set down the guidelines or conditions of eligibility or fitness for appointment or promotion to any particular post

In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, seize the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and impose conditions in internal recruitment matters, unless there is a grave violation of applicable law, rules and regulations

In the private sectors, the employer is free to decide the criteria of appointment and promotions and other terms and conditions of employment and for this purpose, may set down its business strategy, H.R. policies, and progression plans

Whereas for the appointment, transfer and promotion in the civil service, the Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules framed by the Federal Government and Provincial Governments separately under their Civil Servants Acts prevail and are followed, and in case of statutory bodies, appointments and promotions are made in accordance with their statutory requirements, rules and regulations; but in all such circumstances, it is within the domain of the competent authority to prescribe required qualification and experience in the recruitment and promotion process

Courts cannot force to accept or interchange any other qualification equivalent to the specific post with specific qualification advertised for inviting applications for recruitment or setting benchmark for promotion of employees to any particular post or grade on attaining any particular length of service.

In the affairs of admission and examination in educational institutions, the concerned authorities are vested with the powers and jurisdiction to lay down the eligibility criteria in their own rules, regulations, or prospectus

They are independent to follow their own policy for admission, and in other affairs, therefore, the academic, administrative, and disciplinary autonomy of a university must be respected

Interference by the courts in the admission policy would give rise to glitches for the said institutions to administer the matters harmoniously and efficiently

Educational institutions are competent to manage their own affairs without any outside intervention from executive or judicial organs unless they contravene or disregard the compass of their authority or act in breach of applicable statutes or admission policies as laid down in the prospectus.

Employer may prescribe required qualifications and the preference for appointment of candidate who is best suited to his requirements

Court cannot set down the guidelines or conditions of eligibility or fitness for appointment or promotion to any particular post

In no case can the Court, in the garb of judicial review, seize the chair of the appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and impose conditions in internal recruitment matters, unless there is a grave violation of applicable law, rules and regulations

In the private sectors, the employer is free to decide the criteria of appointment and promotions and other terms and conditions of employment and for this purpose, may set down its business strategy, H.R. policies, and progression plans

Whereas for the appointment, transfer and promotion in the civil service, the Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules framed by the Federal Government and Provincial Governments separately under their Civil Servants Acts prevail and are followed, and in case of statutory bodies, appointments and promotions are made in accordance with their statutory requirements, rules and regulations; but in all such circumstances, it is within the domain of the competent authority to prescribe required qualification and experience in the recruitment and promotion process

Courts cannot force to accept or interchange any other qualification equivalent to the specific post with specific qualification advertised for inviting applications for recruitment or setting benchmark for promotion of employees to any particular post or grade on attaining any particular length of service.

It is for Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) and PEMRA alone to consider eligibility of an applicant within the criteria prescribed by and/or under Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 or disqualification of such applicant for purposes of S. 25 of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

Such exercise of public authority cannot be outsourced to Federal Government or Inter Service Intelligence, the Intelligence Bureau or any other intelligence agency or instrumentality of Federal Government

PEMRA does not have the authority to fetter its discretion in applying the criteria for grant of licenses prescribed by or under Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and render the exercise of its statutory authority contingent upon grant of prior approval from Federal Government or an intelligence agency

No role for intelligence or security agencies has been contemplated under Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 in grant or revocation of licenses

Carving out such role through exercise of delegated legislative powers is a fraud on the statute and inimical to the right of freedom of speech and information guaranteed by the Constitution.

Autonomy, agency and free choice of the employing institution must be respected and be allowed to recruit according to the criteria advertised and anyone overqualified for the said post, if not entertained by the employing institution, the same being an institutional policy, the Court must refrain from interfering in the internal governance of institutions.

Any person aspiring for the appointment to a post has to pass the eligibility criteria prescribed in the relevant law for that post and cannot be absolved from fulfilling those criteria on the ground that some other person who was allowed to compete for or appointed to such post also did not meet the prescribed criteria.

Any person aspiring for the appointment to a post has to pass the eligibility criteria prescribed in the relevant law for that post and cannot be absolved from fulfilling those criteria on the ground that some other person who was allowed to compete for or appointed to such post also did not meet the prescribed criteria.

Autonomy, agency and free choice of the employing institution must be respected and be allowed to recruit according to the criteria advertised and anyone overqualified for the said post, if not entertained by the employing institution, the same being an institutional policy, the Court must refrain from interfering in the internal governance of institutions.

Food Safety and Halal Food Authority (' the Authority') refused candidature of the petitioner, for her being a M.Sc (Hons.) in Human Nutrition

Contention of the Petitioner, claiming Human Nutrition as a discipline of Nutrition Science, was that her degree, if not higher in standard from the criteria / qualification, was at least equal to the required one, hence her candidature was wrongly refused

Validity

Close perusal of criteria / qualification ,as per advertisement for the post, showed that the candidate must have a Bachelor Degree in Food Safety / Quality Management / Food Safety and Control / Food Nutrition and Science; and if any candidate possessed a Master / B.Sc (Hons.) or BS in biological Science, such candidate should have an additional qualification i.e. Post Graduate Diploma in Food Safety and Control

Petitioner, admittedly, did not possess any Diploma or Degree in Food Safety and Control or Food Nutrition and Science

Eligibility / fitness to hold a particular post was the sole domain of the Appointing Authority and the discretion of the said Authority was structured through Rules / Regulations laying down a particular criteria for a particular post subjectively evaluated by the Competent Authority keeping in view the skills, education of a particular candidate for a particular post

High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction had no mandate to interfere unless the criteria was either contrary to law or was based on discrimination

Concerned department was in better position to lay down criteria for a particular post keeping in view the requirement of job

No case for interference by the High Court was made-out

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act (XVIII of 1973), Ss.4 & 19, provisos 2 & 3 [as added by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2013]

Contract appointment regularized later

Pensionary benefits

Eligibility criteria

Scope

Contention of the petitioner ( widower) was that the services rendered on contractual side (fixed pay) by her late wife could be calculated towards her regular service for completing qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits

Validity

Pensionary benefits, in view of Art. 371-A of Civil Service Regulations, 1960, in juxtaposition with Rr. 2.2 & 2.3 of the Civil Services Pension Rules as well as Ss. 4 & 19 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act, 1973, could not be availed without completion of 10 years qualifying service after regularization of employee, as in such case the services rendered by him/her on contract/fixed pay could not be added/counted (for pensionary benefits)

Record revealed that the deceased wife of the petitioner had not fulfilled the said eligibility criteria (i.e. 10 years qualifying service ) independently till her death after her regularization, therefore , the services rendered by her on contractual side /fixed pay, could not be added to her regular service for pensionary benefits

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner without availing remedies provided under Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010, assailed order disqualifying it from tender proceedings

Validity

Petitioner could not prove eligibility criteria as mentioned in Tender Notice in order to determine its eligibility as per law

If bidder whose bid was determined to be the lowest but who did not have capability to perform the contract his bid was to be rejected

Petitioner after decision of Grievance Redressal Committee did not approach to Review Committee through filing an appeal as provided in R. 32 of Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010

Petitioner approached High Court without availing remedy of appeal

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as decision of disqualifying petitioner from tender proceedings was neither against the law nor any substantial error or procedural defect was committed and no material point of law was left undecided

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

In assessment of suitability of a particular nature of job and its scope in the context of particular employer the Court cannot prescribe the eligibility or experience qualifications and work experience as these are matters of policy and best be left to the department.

Petitioner assailed pre-qualification bid process for procurement of event management services by respondent authorities declaring him disqualified

Validity

Provisions of Public Procurement Rules, 2004 envisaged that while engaging in pre-qualification, a procuring agency could tailor evaluation criteria while taking into consideration relevant experience and past performance; capabilities with respect to personnel, equipment, and plant; financial position; and appropriate managerial capability, along with any other factor that the procuring agency could deem relevant which was not inconsistent with Public Procurement Rules, 2004

No cogent factor has been raised as to conclude, keeping in mind the size and nature of the event, that the requirement as to experience or financial standing ought not to have been incorporated in the manner imposed

Fate of petitioner's challenge turned on a determination of whether its disqualification in light of the criteria could be termed unreasonable, which entailed an assessment of whether or not the same ensued for reasons that could reasonably be regarded as being valid

Letters issued by bank did not qualify as an unequivocal expression of an available credit line in favour of petitioner

Such letters reflected a tentative arrangement contingent on further processes, evaluations and approvals, that too by or at the behest of a third party

Authorities did not act unreasonably in withholding marks from the petitioner on such score

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as no substantial case on merit as to arbitrariness or a contravention of Public Procurement Rules, 2004, could be made out so as to require remedy through judicial review

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Under the recruitment policy, a Regular Institute of Technical Education (R.I.T.E) diploma holder was to be given preference over other candidates

However, such preference was only to be given when the candidate had equal marks as the other competing candidate on merit

Therefore, a distinction must be drawn between a R.I.T.E diploma holder who had equal marks as other candidates on the merit list and was thereby given preference on the basis of his qualification, and a R.I.T.E diploma holder who scored significantly lower marks than competing candidates

Latter candidate was not to be given preference merely by virtue of the diploma

Accordingly, the respondent-candidate, who possessed a R.I.T.E diploma, could not be given preference over the candidates appointed against the respective posts when his overall marks were significantly lower than those who were appointed on merit

Appeal was allowed.

Under the recruitment policy, a Regular Institute of Technical Education (R.I.T.E) diploma holder was to be given preference over other candidates

However, such preference was only to be given when the candidate had equal marks as the other competing candidate on merit

Therefore, a distinction must be drawn between a R.I.T.E diploma holder who had equal marks as other candidates on the merit list and was thereby given preference on the basis of his qualification, and a R.I.T.E diploma holder who scored significantly lower marks than competing candidates

Latter candidate was not to be given preference merely by virtue of the diploma

Accordingly, the respondent-candidate, who possessed a R.I.T.E diploma, could not be given preference over the candidates appointed against the respective posts when his overall marks were significantly lower than those who were appointed on merit

Appeal was allowed.

Qualifications, eligibility criteria and methodology of evaluation of Board were prescribed in Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-19 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019

Such fell within exclusive domain of competent authority and it was an administrative function

Competent authority was the best judge to decide what factors were to be given preference and to what extent

Weightage given to a particular factor e.g. qualifications or quantum of allocation of marks to the Board, was not amenable to judicial scrutiny

Such were policy matters and not justiciable by a Court of law

Court could not curtail freedom of competent authority to formulate policy for promotion nor limit its prerogative to prescribe qualifications, conditions, eligibility criteria and methodology required to be adopted for the purposes of evaluation

Presumption of regularity, fairness and reliability of proceedings and subjective evaluation of Board could not be interfered with except when mala fide was demonstrably shown to float on the surface of record

High Court declared that Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 were validly framed and were not inconsistent with principles and law enunciated in on the subject

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as proceedings of Board and its affirmation by competent authority were impartial, unbiased, fair and result of careful consideration

Petitioners failed to rebut presumption of regularity and fairness attached with the proceedings and actions of Board or competent authority

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Sole prerogative of government and competent authority to prescribe qualifications and other conditions relating to eligibility criteria

Civil servant cannot claim that prescribed qualifications or eligibility criteria be applied retrospectively, nor to restrain competent authority from changing or altering rules, regulations or policies to his / her prejudice

No vested right is involved in promotion to a post nor rules determining or prescribing qualification and eligibility criteria.

Nomination papers filed by petitioner were rejected by the Authority on grounds that he was carrying business of real estate

Validity

Petitioner acknowledged that he had been running business of real estate two years ago

Such factual aspect was already adjudicated upon by Election Commission as well as appellate forum

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings as contention of petitioner was based upon disputed questions of fact and same had already been resolved by forums below

Petitioner could not discharge his onus by simply placing affidavit as status of affidavit had no value unless its facts and deponent had gone through test of cross-examination before any Authority

High Court declined to interfere in orders passed by two forums below

Constitutional Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner was aggrieved of acceptance of nomination papers of respondent by authorities to contest elections of Cooperative Society

Plea raised by petitioner was that respondent was running a company which was providing security services to cooperative society in question, like this he was getting direct benefit from the society

Validity

If such practices were allowed, it would damage entire structure of the Society By-laws and all those individuals who had vested interest would enter into arena which further would damage affairs of society and such interest of members were prejudiced

No one could become member unless his name was confirmed in annual general meeting and respondent got membership of Society in question after holding of last annual general meeting

Completion of one year had yet to take effect therefore, respondent was not qualified to contest elections

High Court set aside orders passed by election authorities

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) published an advertisement seeking applications for appointment of Judicial Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Minimum age for applicants was set at 40 years

Both the respondents, who were below 45 years of age at the closing date for receipt of applications, complied with the recruitment procedure and were appointed as Judicial Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Plea that S.130(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provided that a person could only be appointed as a Judicial Member of the said Tribunal if he was qualified to be a Judge of the High Court, for which minimum age of 45 years was provided under Art.193(2) of the Constitution, therefore, respondents were not qualified to be appointed

Validity

For appointment as Judicial Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, two categories of persons had been provided under S.130(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, one who had exercised powers of District Judge and the other who had been an advocate of High Court, and both categories of persons were required to fulfil one common qualification i.e. they should be qualified to be a Judge of the High Court

Article 193(2) of the Constitution provided that for appointment as a Judge of the High Court, a person had to be not less than 45 years of age

Although said minimum age was reduced to 40 years by way of Constitution (Second Amendment), Order, 2007, but said amendment was declared to be unconstitutional and void ab initio by the Supreme Court, thus the Constitution continued to lay down an age of not less than 45 years

Words "qualified to be a Judge of High Court" used in S.130(3)(a) & (b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 incorporated by way of referential legislation the whole text and tenor of Art.193(2) of the Constitution, which provides for qualification for appointment to post of Judge of High Court

Both respondents were less than 45 years of age at the time of their appointment

Recommendation letter and notification of appointment of respondents as Judicial Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and were accordingly set aside

Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) was directed to undertake fresh exercise for appointment of Judicial Members of the said Tribunal at the earliest

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Person who sought appointment to office of Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should have an age of not less than 45 years, as provided under Art.193(2) of the Constitution.

Person who sought appointment to office of Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should have an age of not less than 45 years, as provided under Art.193(2) of the Constitution.

Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) published an advertisement seeking applications for appointment of Judicial Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Minimum age for applicants was set at 40 years

Both the respondents, who were below 45 years of age at the closing date for receipt of applications, complied with the recruitment procedure and were appointed as Judicial Members, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

Plea that S.130(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 provided that a person could only be appointed as a Judicial Member of the said Tribunal if he was qualified to be a Judge of the High Court, for which minimum age of 45 years was provided under Art.193(2) of the Constitution, therefore, respondents were not qualified to be appointed

Validity

For appointment as Judicial Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, two categories of persons had been provided under S.130(3) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, one who had exercised powers of District Judge and the other who had been an advocate of High Court, and both categories of persons were required to fulfil one common qualification i.e. they should be qualified to be a Judge of the High Court

Article 193(2) of the Constitution provided that for appointment as a Judge of the High Court, a person had to be not less than 45 years of age

Although said minimum age was reduced to 40 years by way of Constitution (Second Amendment), Order, 2007, but said amendment was declared to be unconstitutional and void ab initio by the Supreme Court, thus the Constitution continued to lay down an age of not less than 45 years

Words "qualified to be a Judge of High Court" used in S.130(3)(a) & (b) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 incorporated by way of referential legislation the whole text and tenor of Art.193(2) of the Constitution, which provides for qualification for appointment to post of Judge of High Court

Both respondents were less than 45 years of age at the time of their appointment

Recommendation letter and notification of appointment of respondents as Judicial Members of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and were accordingly set aside

Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) was directed to undertake fresh exercise for appointment of Judicial Members of the said Tribunal at the earliest

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Position of Chairman PEMRA had to be filled by a person who fulfilled the exceptional and stringent requirements prescribed in the Ordinance and not by a casual appointee

Appointment of Chairman had to be made through an open and transparent process to ensure that the appointee met the objective criteria specified in the Ordinance.

Petitioner was already serving in BS-17, when she applied for the post of section officer but authorities declared her as ineligible for the post

Validity

Public notice got published by Federal Public Service Commission, as well as the Rules for Selection of Section Officers Promotional Examination-2010, revealed that all civil servants who had put in minimum 8 years of service in BS-11 to 16 were eligible for the examination

Civil servant, already serving in BS-17, having minimum eight years of service in BS-11 to 16, was not eligible for the examination

If petitioner was declared eligible for appointment as Section Officer (BS-17), same would amount to depriving civil servants serving in BS-11 to 16 from promotion/appointment as Section Officer BS-17

High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, declined to interfere in order passed by Federal Public Service Commission

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.