Muhammad Imran and others vs Muhammad Sajan Panhwar and others
This matter concerns a challenge to the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Public Sector Generation Holding Company Limited (GHCL). The respondent, claiming to be a union representative, challenged the petitioner's appointment in the High Court, alleging that the petitioner lacked the requisite engineering qualifications to manage a power generation entity. The High Court set aside the petitioner's appointment, interpreting the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 and the Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015 to mandate an engineering degree for the position. The petitioner appealed, contending that neither the Rules nor the Guidelines require a degree in electrical or mechanical engineering for the CEO role and that the High Court misconstrued the applicable legal framework. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court's interpretation of the qualification criteria was legally sound and whether the appointment was valid under the governing Rules and Guidelines. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Supreme Court suspended the operation of the High Court's impugned judgment.
- Does the Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015 mandate that a Chief Executive Officer of a power generation company must hold a degree in electrical or mechanical engineering?
- Can a High Court set aside the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer of a public sector company based on a restrictive interpretation of qualification guidelines?
- Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013
- Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015
ORDER
GULZAR AHMED, C.J.---Muhammad Imran, Petitioner in C.P. No. 3431/2021 and Respondent No. 5 in C.P. No. 3633/2021 (the petitioner) was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Public Sector . Generation Holding Company Limited (GHCL). Muhammad Sajan Panhwar , Respondent No.1 in both C.Ps. (the respondent) claiming himself to be the Markazi Secretary General of WAPDA Employees Pegham Union, working in Jamshoro Power Company Limited (GENCO-I), filed a constitution petition in the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad (the High Court:) alleging that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as Chief Executive Officer of GHCL. In the constitution petition the respondent has taken a plea that petitioner was Fellow Member of the institute of Cost and Management Accountants and was not a qualified Engineer to undertake and perform the work of the Chief Executive Officer of GHCL, whose job was to produce electricity and thereafter , to sale the same to the National Grid for onward distribution to the public. The High Court in the impugned judgment has dealt with the provision of Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013 (the Rules of 2013) and the Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015 (the Guidelines of 2015). In the Guidelines it is mentioned that the candidate shall possess a Graduate Degree from well-reputed institute or such other professional qualification relating to the principle line of business of the public sector company , including manufacturing, mining, science, technology , agriculture, social science, or any other field commensurate to the job.
Besides this, a candidate could be a member of a recognized body of professional accountants or a recognized businessman or professional with a postgraduate degree in business administration or public administration or finance or commerce or business that of mechanical/electrical engineering. The High Court in the impugned judgment found such appointment of the petitioner to be not in accordance with law and while setting aside the Notification of appointment of the petition er dated 04.01.2018, directed the Fede ral Government to reinitiate the process of appointment of new Chief Executive Of ficer of GHCL.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that neither in the Rules of 2013 nor in the Guidelines of 2015, there is any provision for the Chief Executive Officer to hold a Degree in the field of Electrical or Mechanical Engineering and such has been wrongly construed. He contends that the petitioner was qualified to be appointed as the Chief Executive Officer of GHCL and there was no illegality in the same and the High Court was not justified in setting aside his appointment as such. He further contends that the law relied upon in the impugned judgment has apparently , no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
The contentions raised by the, learned counsel for the petitioner require consideration. Leave to appeal is granted to consider , inter alia, the same. The appeals shall be heard on the available record but the parties are allowed to file additional documents, if any, within a period of one month. As the matter relates to service, the office is directed to fix the same expeditiously preferably , after three months.
C.M.As. Nos. 7040 and 6410 of 2021
3. The operation of the impugned judgment is suspended.