Appointment criteria

2025 PLC(CS) 398 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

EmploymentAppointment criteriaPower to prescribe criteriaScope

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

2024 PLD 515 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 175A(8) & 175A(12)Judicial Commission of Pakistan Rules, 2010, R. 3Parliamentary Committee on Judges Appointment in the Superior Courts Rules, 2010, Rr. 4(3) & 4(4)Additional Judges of (Peshawar) High Court, appointment ofAppointment of District judges as Additional Judges of the High CourtAppointment criteriaSeniority-cum-meritJudicial Commission and Parliamentary Committee

Scope and powers of Judicial Commission and Parliamentary Committee in regard to appointment of Judges in the superior Courts under Article 175A of the Constitution stated.

2023 PLC(CS) 1548 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 8Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Food Safety and Halal Food Authority, powers ofConstitutional jurisdiction of the High CourtScopeAppointment criteriaPrerogative of Appointing AuthorityAppointment to the post of Food Safety OfficerEligibility criteria

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.

2023 YLR 2594 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rr. 17 & 22Notification No. 812-2010/586-C(V)Headman (Lumberdar), selection ofAppointment CriteriaHereditary claimsScope

After the death of the permanent headman (Lumberdar), his son (respondent) continued on the post, however, the concerned district Collector appointed the petitioner as Lumberdar which order was maintained by the Executive District Officer (Revenue)

Member Board of Revenue set-aside concurrent orders of subordinate authorities and appointed the respondent Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against his elimination

Validity

Headman / Lumberdar was an administrative seat of its own class, which post could neither be designated as profession nor against any profit, rather the Headman (Lumberdar) held an honourary post acting as bridge inter se the landowners and Revenue Authorities, therefore, no one could claim his appointment as vested right

It is, in fact, the choice of Revenue Authority to appoint a suitable candidate per yardstick set out in R. 17 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968 ('the Rules 1968') for discharging the obligations assigned to him in terms of R. 22 of the Rules 1968

Object should be that person best suited for the said post should be committed to enable the Administration, so that command and control over the state land, Exchequer as well as other affairs could be maintained

Rule 17 of the Rules, 1968 stipulated the features to be considered while selecting a suitable candidate for appointment headman (Lumberdar) which (features) still included the hereditary claims (along with other relevant features) and it was sine quo non for the Revenue Authorities to consider the same

Record showed that not only the father of the respondent, but his grandfather too remained Headman (Lumberdar) of the concerned revenue estate, thus Priority No. 1 as per R. 17 of the Rules, 1968 was available to the respondent; and he, after death of his father, remained headman (Lumberdar) for more than thirteen years, which appointment was made as per prevalent policy promulgated via Notification No. 812-2010/586-C(V) which stipulated that the land was to be retained by the family of deceased Lumberdar till appointment of new incumbent

Though the petitioner was having edge over the respondent vis-a-vis education, strength of property, yet neither said factors were sole criteria for selection nor could be given preference over hereditary claim as well as experience without a single complaint

Member Board of Revenue had perfectly passed the impugned order as per history of the case as well as relevant law while exercising his lawful authority

No material irregularity or patent illegality or jurisdictional defect having been noticed in the impugned order

constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 PLC(CS) 1507 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Regularization of servicePolicy matterAppointment criteriaPetitioners were contract employees and aggrieved of not being regularizing in servicePetitioners assailed selection criteria of 2nd Division academic qualification fixed by authorities for selectionValidity

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

Setting the criteria of 2nd Division of academic qualification in the policy as well as advertisement related to the policy matter of government /department, therefore, Court could not interfere into it

It was not in the domain of the Courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular Policy was wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be drafted

Court could only interfere, if the policy framed was absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of the Constitution

It was for the Department to decide how and in what manner the reservations should be made and such a policy decision normally would not be open to challenge subject to its passing the test of reasonableness

Petitioners, in spite of having 3rd Division in academic qualification, were duly appointed for a period of five years who performed their duties and their tenure of further extension of one year had also expired

High Court declined to interfere with order passed by authorities which otherwise had been passed aptly

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 PLC(CS) 1287 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Claim for appointment against quota reserved for children of in service employeesAppointment criteriaPreferential right of appointmentIntelligible differentiaScopeAppellant assailed order passed by Single Judge of High Court whereby his constitutional petition was dismissed

Claim of appellant was that he applied for appointment against 20% quota reserved for children of in-service employees but his case was not properly considered

Validity

Appointment was to be made on the basis of inter-se merit of children of employees to be fixed keeping in view the priorities mentioned in para. 1 of the notification in question wherein the children of deceased and retired employees had to be given priority over the children of in-service employees

Appellant was not entitled to be considered for appointment along with or in preference to the said categories and had to be considered when the candidates in the said categories had been exhausted

Notification challenged by appellant was based on a policy decision which could not be called in question through constitutional jurisdiction unless the same was violative of the Constitution Fundamental Rights, law or suffered from illegality, arbitrariness or established mala fides

Reasonable classification had been made by giving priority to the children of employees who no longer remained in service over the children of serving employees which itself was made on the basis of intelligible differentia and reasons for making such classification was beyond the scope of determination by High Court as the said classification was not in conflict with any prevailing law

Intra-court appeal was dismissed.

2019 SCMR 1720 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)Writ of quo warrantoScopeCivil serviceAppointment criteriaPrescribed qualification and experience

Candidate appointed to post lacking the prescribed qualification and experience at time of appointment but fulfilling the same during pendency of writ (of quo warranto) filed against him

Where the eligibility of a public servant was under attack on the ground that such public servant did not fulfil the substantive condition of eligibility to such office on the cutoff date prescribed in the process, then such violation of the substantive statutory requirement could not be overlooked merely on the ground that pending action in the Court such government servant had met the required condition of such office.

2019 PLC(CS) 1375 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art.199(1)(b)(ii)Writ of quo warrantoScopeCivil serviceAppointment criteriaPrescribed qualification and experience

Candidate appointed to post lacking the prescribed qualification and experience at time of appointment but fulfilling the same during pendency of writ (of quo warranto) filed against him

Where the eligibility of a public servant was under attack on the ground that such public servant did not fulfil the substantive condition of eligibility to such office on the cutoff date prescribed in the process, then such violation of the substantive statutory requirement could not be overlooked merely on the ground that pending action in the Court such government servant had met the required condition of such office.

2017 PLD 489 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 10University of the Punjab Act (IX of 1973), Ss. 14(2) & 14(4)Public Sectors Universities (Amendment) Act (LX of 2012), S.2 & PreambleConstitution of Pakistan, Fourth Sched. Part II, Item No.12 & Arts. 142, 143, 154 & 199Government of Punjab, Higher Education Department Notification No.SO(Univ.) 5-3/09, dated 7th April, 2015Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3Public sector universitiesVice ChancellorsAppointment criteria

Directions and declaration of the High Court in respect of, inter alia, legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature in the subject of higher education, appointment of Vice Chancellors, nature of guidelines issued by Higher Education Commission Ordinance, 2002 and role of the Council of Common Interest (CCI).