Pakistan Case LawKHALID KHAN Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the selection process for the post of Naib-Tehsildar under the West Pakistan Naib-Tehsildari and Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962. The petitioner, a Senior Clerk, challenged the selection of other candidates for the ministerial quota, alleging a lack of transparent criteria in the Departmental Promotion Committee's decision-making process. The core legal question is whether the selection on merit from the ministerial service is valid when the selecting authority fails to establish or apply manifest, standardized criteria for the comparative evaluation of candidates. Additionally, the petition questions the validity of age relaxation granted to a selected candidate when other eligible candidates were available. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the absence of minutes or records demonstrating that the Selection Committee's discretion was exercised through standardized, meaningful principles. The Court emphasized the principle that where legislative bodies delegate discretionary power to administrative authorities, those authorities must develop and apply manifest standards to confine their discretion, ensuring that selection processes are not arbitrary or devoid of objective evaluation.
- Is a selection process for promotion valid if the selecting authority fails to establish and apply manifest, standardized criteria for the comparative evaluation of candidates?
- Does the delegation of discretionary power to administrative bodies require the development of manifest principles to confine that discretion?
- Can age relaxation be granted to a candidate for a promotional post when a sufficient number of eligible competing candidates are available?
- Section 5(1), West Pakistan Naib-Tehsildari and Tehsildari Service Rules 1962
- Delegation of Powers (Relaxation of Age Rules) 1961
ORDER
MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---The method of recruitment of Naib-Tehsisdars under section 5 (1) of the West Pakistan NaibTehsildari and Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called as the Rules) which have been adopted by the Government of N.-W.F.P., is as under:--
It would thus be noticed that 40 per centum of the vacancies of NaibTehsildars are reserved for ministerial staff to be filled in on the basis of selection on merit. Two posts of Naib-Tehsildars were available for the ministerial quota in the year, 1994 for which a list of 37 officials including the petitioner was drawn up and placed before the D.P.C. After deliberations the D.P.C. Selected respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and, in consequence, a formal order was duly issued on 27-3-1994. Feeling aggrieved of the selection of respondents Nos.4 and 5, the petitioner made representation dated 9-4-1994 to the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P. But "it did not invoke any response and after expiry of 90 days, the petitioner invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the learned Service Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar" which had proved abortive on 27-10-1994.
2.The petitioner while serving as Senior Clerk in the Office of the Political Agent, Mohmand Agency was, inter alia, recommended to the Commissioner, Peshawar Division, Peshawar, for recruitment as NaibTehsildar for the first time on 31-10-1985 and for the second time on 23-8-1986. Vide order dated 11-11-1990 passed by respondent No,2 the petitioner was appointed as Naib-Tehsildar on acting charge basis which was later on modified on 13-6-1991 and the petitioner was promoted as NaibTehsildar on ad hoc basis as a stop-gap arrangement.
3.Prima facie, there are no minutes of the deliberations of the Selection Committee or any record to show that the discretion exercised by it for determining comparative merit of the candidates was meaning fully standardised. The ratio in the case of Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 SC 14) referred to by the petitioner's counsel was that when a legislative bodies delegate discretionary power without meaningful standards, administrators should develop standards at the earliest feasible time, and then, as circumstances permit, should further confine their own discretion through manifest principles and rules.
4.In the circumstances, leave to appeal is granted to consider whether selection on merit from amongst the members of the ministerial service to the post of Naib-Tehsildar under rule 5 of the Rules is valid without manifestly laying down criteria for the comparative evaluation of the merits of candidates and further that in view of availability of a sufficient number of eligible competing candidates, relaxation in upper age limit granted to respondent No,4 is not covered by the Delegation of Powers (Relaxation of Age Rules, 1961, read with N.-W.F.P. Service and General Administration Circular Letter No,SOR-I (S&GAD) 1-117/91 (c) dated the 12th October, 1993.
Judges on this bench
- Sajjad Ali Shah1,895 judgments
- Irshad Hasan Khan1,063 judgments
- Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri382 judgments