Selection process
Selection process legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Petitioners (two candidates) were aggrieved of the handout by the Public Service Commission (PSC), whereby the contesting respondent was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (BPS-18)
Contention of the petitioners was that initially 17 candidates were shortlisted for interview and the name of the (contesting) respondent was not amongst them, so her participation in the interview and subsequent issuance of her appointment order was a manipulation in the selection process
Validity
Original record (award list, marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, academic qualifications and the interview) revealed that the respondent secured an aggregate of 66.96 marks, while the candidates ranked at 16 and 17 in the list i.e. the petitioners, herein, obtained 61.24 and 58.61 marks, respectively
Thus, the respondent had a higher merit position as compared to the candidates short listed for interview, thus, her inclusion in the interview for appointment against one of the posts, appeared to be in accordance with merit
Allegation of manipulation by the PSC was found to be devoid of substance
However, official respondents (the Director / Secretary PSC) admitted that it was failure not to include the name of private respondent in the shortlisted candidates due to an error on the part of the PSC
Such like mistakes are concerning, particularly for an institution like the PSC, which is entrusted with the critical responsibility of ensuring merit-based selection for public service positions
Error of such like nature, not only compromise the integrity of the recruitment process but also erode public confidence in the fairness and transparency of the PSC
Moreover, these lapses lead to an increase in litigation, as affected individuals seek to challenge the validity of the selection process, as was the situation in the present case
Thus, situation underscores the urgent need for the PSC to implement robust measures to prevent such errors in the future
Strengthening its procedures will help in restoring public trust and upholding the PSC's role as a reliable and impartial authority in public service recruitment
Maintaining the integrity of PSC is essential to ensure that merit and transparency remain the cornerstone of public sector appointments
No illegality was noticed in impugned judgments passed by the High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the petitioners/ candidates
Petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Grievance of the petitioner was that despite clearing the written and physical assessments, he was declared unsuccessful in the interview on account of political favouritism and nepotism by selecting such candidates, who even had not participated in the recruitment process
Validity
Petitioner had alleged favoritism and nepotism; however, these allegations remained unsubstantiated, which rested solely on conjecture and oral averments, unsupported by documentary evidence
High Court could not place reliance upon such vague allegations to unravel or undo an otherwise lawful recruitment process
If such unverified claims were permitted to prevail, it would open floodgates for indiscriminate litigation and cast aspersions upon the sanctity of institutional recruitment
Assessment/re-evaluation lies within the exclusive domain of the Interview or Recruitment Committee to assess and evaluate candidates during the interview process and to allocate scores according to their own judgment and assessment
High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under the constitutional writ, cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Recruitment Committee
Authority and wisdom vested in the Committee cannot be interfered with or questioned, unless there is manifest malice or gross illegality on the face of the record warranting judicial intervention
Judicial scrutiny does not extend to re-evaluation of interview scores or assessment unless it is demonstrably arbitrary or discriminatory
Petitioner admitted that he could not qualify in the interview and his allegations required factual inquiry, which was beyond the scope of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
In absence of any compelling evidence pointing to mala fide or gross illegality, High Court cannot grant the relief sought
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.
Advertisement is an invitation to an offer which eligible candidates can respond to by offering their services for appointment
Unless invitation clearly sets out criteria for evaluation of offers/applications for appointment received in response and employment terms which may be material for the decision to apply for advertised post it cannot solicit suitable offers of services for appointment from eligible candidates and the authority may be deprived of the best candidate.
Wrongful selection of blue eyed candidates founded on nepotism, favoritism or other extraneous considerations or pressures lead to chaos and turmoil in the civil service structure and also incites unrest and discontent amongst the civil servants with long-term and serious repercussions
Merit should be the sole criteria in the selection process which is an integral part of good governance.
Wrongful selection of blue eyed candidates founded on nepotism, favoritism or other extraneous considerations or pressures lead to chaos and turmoil in the civil service structure and also incites unrest and discontent amongst the civil servants with long-term and serious repercussions
Merit should be the sole criteria in the selection process which is an integral part of good governance.
Search Committee recommended three names in alphabetical order to the Chief Minister for recommending one name to the Chancellor/Governor for appointment as Vice-Chancellor
Chief Minister after interviewing the said three candidates recommended the candidate appearing at serial No.2 of the said list
Legality
No yardstick existed on the basis of which Search Committee could assign marks to the candidates recommended for appointment as Vice-Chancellor of the University
Search Committee was not required to assign marks to the candidates and its recommendations were not binding on the Chief Minister
Chief Minister had discretion to nominate one candidate for the position of Vice-Chancellor after interviewing the candidates recommended by the Search Committee
High Court would decline interference with such administrative decision unless any Fundamental Right had been infringed
Nothing was on record that discretion had been wrongly exercised by the Chief Minister
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Absolute power of appointment was not given to authorities in the present case to appoint any person of their choice but the Search Committee consisting of eminent professionals was constituted which after detailed scrutiny of the credentials and interview of each candidate, recommended three names, without any preference
Section 12(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012 gave discretion to the Chancellor/Governor to appoint anyone out of the three candidates recommended by the Search Committee on the advice of Chief Minister
No mala fides on part of Appointing authority were proved
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Respondents participated in the selection process, whereafter they were issued appointment letters and joined their respective services
Subsequently respondents were issued termination letters on the basis that their appointments had been made without observing codal formalities, and the official who had signed their appointment letters was not competent to do so
Respondents filed constitutional petition before the High Court, which was allowed and impugned termination orders were set aside with the directions that a Committee should be constituted to re-process the case of each respondent; that in case any of the respondents had submitted a fake document, or there was any criminal case pending against him, or he was not a resident of the area for which recruitments were made or otherwise did not meet the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement on the basis of which he was appointed, such respondent shall not be inducted into service, and that all other respondents shall be deemed to have been reinstated into service with effect from the date on which their services were terminated
Validity
Such order passed by the High Court was absolutely valid and it had been left to the department itself to scrutinize/examine the eligibility of the respondents
High Court gave directions to retain those who passed the eligibility test by applying the rule of locus poenitentiae, notwithstanding that there was some irregularity in the process of selection, may be on account of one of the members (of the recruitment committee) who was said to be incompetent to act as appointing authority, and those who were not eligible/qualified were to be relieved from service
Department had to act fairly in terms of the directions of the High Court and take further action
Supreme Court directed that re-selection process, as mandated by the High Court, should be completed within a period of two months without fail
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Respondents participated in the selection process, whereafter they were issued appointment letters and joined their respective services
Subsequently respondents were issued termination letters on the basis that their appointments had been made without observing codal formalities, and the official who had signed their appointment letters was not competent to do so
Respondents filed constitutional petition before the High Court, which was allowed and impugned termination orders were set aside with the directions that a Committee should be constituted to re-process the case of each respondent; that in case any of the respondents had submitted a fake document, or there was any criminal case pending against him, or he was not a resident of the area for which recruitments were made or otherwise did not meet the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement on the basis of which he was appointed, such respondent shall not be inducted into service, and that all other respondents shall be deemed to have been reinstated into service with effect from the date on which their services were terminated
Validity
Such order passed by the High Court was absolutely valid and it had been left to the department itself to scrutinize/examine the eligibility of the respondents
High Court gave directions to retain those who passed the eligibility test by applying the rule of locus poenitentiae, notwithstanding that there was some irregularity in the process of selection, may be on account of one of the members (of the recruitment committee) who was said to be incompetent to act as appointing authority, and those who were not eligible/qualified were to be relieved from service
Department had to act fairly in terms of the directions of the High Court and take further action
Supreme Court directed that re-selection process, as mandated by the High Court, should be completed within a period of two months without fail
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Contention was that vested right had accrued to the petitioner, therefore, the department could not re-advertises the post in question
Validity
Plea raised by the petitioner that he had topped the merit list was substantiated by the minutes of selection committee
Entire process of selection had been carried out as per terms and conditions prescribed for the post in question
No allegation was on record to the effect that selection of petitioner was not on merits or it was made in violation of any rules/regulations
No plausible reason had been rendered by the department regarding non-appointment of the petitioner as well as re-advertisement of the post in question
Petitioner had been duly selected, a right had accrued to him for the job
Authorities were directed to appoint the petitioner against the post in question
Constitutional petition was allowed.
Discretion without a uniform yardstick or a formula' was a loose jumble of haphazard human subjectivity, which was inescapably susceptible to error and indubitably arbitrary, ex facie discriminatory, highly irrational and illogical
Administrative compulsion and wisdom to structure discretion was to remove human subjectivity from exercise of discretion
Intelligent objective criteria or smart parameters were tools for the selecting authority to logically fashion its discretion
Constitutional and jurisprudential importance of structured discretion was that it nursed the requirement of due process, fairness and fair trial and safeguarded the discretion against the vice of discrimination and arbitrariness.
After the appointment of three Members of the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority ("Authority"), the Federal Government was to appoint the Chairman from amongst the three Members providing a pyramidic stewardship structure for running the Authority
Such second tier appointment of Chairman required initiation of a fresh process but with a different set of considerations
One of the considerations was evident from S.3(8) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, which provided that the powers of the Authority in matters relating to its administration and staff should be exercised by the Chairman
Other considerations or qualifications needed to be drawn up by the Cabinet Division in consultation with the Establishment Division in order to develop the profile of an ideal Chairman which could best serve the interest of the Authority
Such exercise was mandatory and was required to be undertaken prior to the selection of Chairman
Three Members of the Authority had to undergo a fresh interview by the Selection Committee unless rules under the Act (not yet framed) provided another transparent alternative
Recommendations of the Selection Committee along with the recommendations of the Cabinet and Establishment Divisions charting out a clear comparative evaluation of the three Members was to be placed before the competent authority (Prime Minister) for approval in terms of Rule 15 of the Rules of Business, 1973
Unless the summary put up before the competent authority was in accordance with the said manner, the exercise of discretion would lack relevant facts resulting in abuse of discretion
Any appointment without first framing the profile of the Chairman and without carrying out a comparative evaluation of the Members for the selection of the Chairman, would be open to the negative forces of nepotism and favourtism.
Promotees/respondents were promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar, (Lahore) High Court by the impugned order of Chief Justice
Appellant, who was Reader, was superseded by the promotees, contended that impugned order of promotion did not furnish any reasons for superseding him; that despite being senior to the promotees he was not promoted; that no "objective criteria" had been evolved for selection to the post of Deputy Registrar, therefore, the impugned order amounted to discrimination
Promotees contended that they were preferred over the appellant because of their better educational qualification, and that under R.26 of High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court had unlimited powers to appoint and promote any officer of the High Court
Validity
Service record of appellant and promotees showed that one of the promotees and the appellant had the same educational qualification, and that appellant was senior to some of the promotees
Impugned order failed to furnish reasons as to why the appellant stood superseded when his service record and educational qualification were at par with one of the promotees
Impugned order also did not state as to why said promotee was selected for promotion when four other Readers in the selection pool, holding better educational qualification, were ignored
Recruitment under R.7 of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules from amongst the pool of officers awaiting promotion on the basis of an open, transparent and intelligent objective criteria followed by a speaking order, was in the public interest and in the larger interest of the institution
Power of selection under R.7 of the said Rules could not be used to select or pick and choose any officer of liking from amongst the officers without considering all the officers awaiting promotion in the pool
Although educational qualification was a valid parameter for the purpose of selection posts but was not the sole parameter
Power vested with the competent authority/Chief Justice under R.26 of High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules did not vest him with unfettered and unguided power to override the regular selection process under R.7 of the said Rules or to brush aside the vested rights of officers, who were awaiting their turn to be considered for promotion
Rule 26 could not be invoked to pick and choose any officer awaiting promotion or otherwise without first considering all the officers in the pool
Impugned order of promotion to the extent of one of the promotees, who was junior to the appellant and possessed the same educational qualification, was set aside in circumstances and appellant was promoted as Deputy Registrar, w.e.f. 10-7-2009, without back benefits, while the remaining promotees were to retain their inter-seniority as maintained prior to their promotion
High Court directed that all appointments and promotions to selection posts should be made in accordance with R.7 of High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules by considering the service record and other antecedents of the officers by employing an objective criteria, and that Registrar, High Court should place all the orders passed by the competent authority (now or in the past) under R.26 or R.7 (without consideration of the officers in the pool) before the competent authority for appropriate orders in accordance with law
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Discretion without a uniform yardstick or a formula was a loose jumble of haphazard human subjectivity, which was inescapably susceptible to error and indubitably arbitrary, ex facie discriminatory, highly irrational and illogical
Administrative compulsion and wisdom to structure discretion was to remove human subjectivity from exercise of discretion
Intelligent objective criteria or smart parameters were tools for the selecting authority to logically fashion its discretion
Constitutional and jurisprudential importance of structured discretion was that it nursed the requirement of due process, fairness and fair trial and safeguarded the discretion against the vice of discrimination and arbitrariness.
"Selection process", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939766
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Selection process"
2026 P L C (C
MUHAMMAD WAJID and others Versus DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (SCHOOLS) AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE JAMMU AND KASHMIR MUZAFFARABAD and others
Court: High Court (AJ&K)2013 P L C (C
GEPCO — Petitioner Versus Malik WAQAS AHMAD and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore High CourtP L D 2013 Lahore 339
GEPCO — Petitioner Versus Malik WAQAS AHMAD and others — Respondents
Court: High Court2012 P L C (C
WAHEED AHMAD and others Versus E.D.O.(R.) and others
Court: Lahore High Court2013 P L C (C
Dr. MURTAZA JAFFARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
Court: Lahore High Court2026 M L D 788
Altaf Ahmed Memon and others — Petitioners Versus Government of Sindh and others — Respondents
Court: Sindh2022 P L C (C
NAVEED NAZIR Versus DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK, IRRIGATION AND ESMA, through Secretary Agriculture, Livestock, Irrigation and ESMA, Azad Government and 5 others
Court: High Court (AJ&K)2006 P L C (C
EHSAN ULLAFI and 3 others Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others
Court: Lahore2005 P L C (C
MUAHMAMD ASAD BUTT and others Versus DISTRICT OFFICER POPULATION WELFARE and 2 others
Court: Lahore High Court2017 P L C (C
BURHAN ULLAH and 2 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Additional Chief Secretary, FATA, Peshawar and 3 others
Court: Peshawar High Court