Recruitment Committee

2024 PLC(CS) 1109 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

RecruitmentRecruitment CommitteeTest and interviewNo vested rightPetitioners assailed recruitment process for posts in question on the plea of vested rightValidityIt was prerogative of Provincial Government to constitute committee for recruitmentCandidates had no choice to raise objection over the committee unless members had grudge or enmity with petitioners

There was no allegation of bias and malice against any member of committee nor there was any allegation that committee members favoured particular candidates due to any relationship or for other reasons

Mere bald allegation on the part of petitioners without any proof could not be a ground to declare that the recruitment process was not transparent

Vested right is a right that has occurred to possessor with no condition and cannot be taken away arbitrarily

Test and interview do not create vested right to a candidate, as it is never a final result of recruitment process

High Court declined to interfere in recruitment process for the posts in question

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2013 PLC(CS) 492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 25 & 199Constitutional petitionCivil serviceRecruitment CommitteeDiscretion, exercise ofRecruitment policyAwarding additional marks

Petitioner applied for Secondary School Educator and her grievance was that authorities did not award her additional two marks for computer literacy (M.S. Office), as it was stated in the advertisement

Authorities contended that award of two additional marks for computer literacy were discretion of Recruitment Committee

Validity

Nothing was laid down in advertisement nor in the recruitment policy as to how two marks set out in the policy were to be awarded to computer literate candidate

Only requirement for award of two additional marks as laid down in advertisement and policy was "Computer Literate (M.S. Office)", while reading the advertisement every candidate possessing such qualification expected to obtain those two marks

Giving discretion for grant of two additional marks to Selection/Recruitment Committee at its own level through a corrigendum would promote misuse of discretion which could result in nepotism, corruption, feeling of despondency and hatred against the State and was detrimental and discriminatory to candidates who expected to be treated on merit

Such candidates had acquired a vested right to be considered for award of two marks for computer literacy as laid down in the advertisement and Recruitment Policy for year, 2008-09, after expiry of last date of receipt of application

No justification existed for the department to deviate from conditions as laid down in the advertisement and recruitment policy

Any amendment made after last date of submission of applications was illegal and unfair, resultantly corrigendum notification was mala fide and made in colourable exercise of authority in order to oblige candidates of their own choice

High Court declared corrigendum notification void ab-initio, having no legal effect on the rights of candidates and was set aside

High Court directed the authorities to issue appointment order to the petitioner for post in question

Petition was allowed accordingly.

2013 PLC(CS) 492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Recruitment CommitteeDiscretion, exercise ofPrinciple

Selection/Recruitment Committee is expected to exercise discretion judiciously, honestly, objectively and in accordance with law.