Muhammad Imran and others vs Muhammad Sajan Panhwar and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which set aside the appointment of the petitioner as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Public Sector Generation Holding Company, Limited (GHCL). The respondent, claiming to be a union official, challenged the appointment on the grounds that the petitioner, a Fellow Member of the Institute of Cost and Management Accountants, lacked the requisite engineering qualifications to manage a power generation entity. The High Court had interpreted the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, and the Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015, as mandating specific engineering degrees for the role. The petitioner contended that neither the Rules nor the Guidelines explicitly require an engineering degree, arguing that his professional qualifications were sufficient. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding the petitioner's contentions regarding the interpretation of the governing rules and guidelines to be substantial and requiring further consideration. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the impugned High Court judgment pending the final adjudication of the appeals.
- Does the Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015, mandate a specific engineering degree for the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer in a power generation company?
- Can a High Court set aside the appointment of a Chief Executive Officer of a public sector company based on an interpretation of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013?
- 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 businessm an 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 petitioner dated 04.01.2018, directed the Federal Government to reinitiate the process of appointment of new Chief Executive Officer 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.
3. 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
4. The operation of the impugned judgment is suspended.