Dr. GULSHAN ALI and 4 others vs SINDH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
These civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petitions in limine. The core legal question concerns whether the re-advertisement of posts of Assistant Professor Surgery by the Sindh Public Service Commission and the subsequent recommendations made by the Commission were vitiated by mala fides or without lawful authority to accommodate certain respondents. The Supreme Court held that the mere re-advertisement of posts, following an increase in the number of vacancies from three to six, does not establish mala fides, particularly when the eligibility of the recommended candidates is undisputed and the selection falls within the competence of the Public Service Commission. The key principle laid down is that recommendations of a public service commission regarding the fitness and suitability of candidates cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of tangible evidence of dishonesty, mala fides, or illegality, nor can suitability be substituted by the court.
- Does the re-advertisement of public service posts by itself constitute sufficient proof of mala fides to vitiate the selection process?
- Can the recommendations of the Sindh Public Service Commission regarding the fitness and suitability of candidates be interfered with in the absence of proof of dishonesty or illegality?
- Whether the High Court can substitute its own view for the suitability of candidates assessed by the Public Service Commission?
ORDER
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---These five civil petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment dated 16-3-1999 passed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh whereby Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-164 to D-169 of 1998, filed by the petitioner, were dismissed in limine.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Sindh Public Service Commission, through an advertisement in daily Dawn dated 20-1-1997, invited applications for three posts of Assistant Professor Surgery stating therein that one post was for the candidates domiciled in Urban Sindh and two seats for the candidates domiciled in Rural Sindh. The petitioners as well as other candidates submitted their applications in pursuance of the advertisement. But subsequently, on 22-2-1998, the Commission readvertised the posts in daily Dawn for six posts, two posts for urban Sindh and four posts for Rural Sindh, with a statement that those who had earlier applied for the posts need not re-apply. All the candidates were interviewed from 20th to 29th July, 1998 and after the interview, respondents 4 to 9 were recommended for the posts.
3. The petitioners" case is that the posts were re-advertised with a view to accommodate the recommended respondents who had their links with highly influential political persons, though the petitioners were more suitable than those (respondents 4 to 9) recommended by respondent No,1, Sindh Public Service Commission. Under these circumstances, the petitioners approached the High Court and prayed for declaration that the recommendations of respondents No,1 in respect of respondents 4 to 9 were without lawful authority, nullity in the eyes of law and liable to be ignored and that respondent Government of Sindh had no authority in law to notify appointment of respondents 4 to 9 as Assistant Professors Surgery and further that respondent Government of Sindh be directed to recall the orders of appointment and posting of respondents 4 to 9.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
5. Mere fact that the posts of Assistant Professor Surgery were re- advertised would not by itself be sufficient to hold that it was done mala fidely to accommodate respondents 4 to 9 considering that the number of posts was increased from 3 to 6 and further that only one candidate (respondent No,9) out of many who had applied in response to the re-advertisement was recommended while the rest five candidates were recommended who had applied in pursuance to the first advertisement. The learned counsel for the petitioners does not dispute the eligibility of respondents 4 to 9 for the advertised posts, but lie contends that the petitioners were better suited for the posts. Learned counsel has not been able to show that respondent No,1 has acted dishonestly, malafidely and unlawfully, consequently, opinion/recommendations of respondent No, 1/Sindh Public Service Commission for respondents Nos.4 to 9 with regard to their fitness and suitability falling within the competence of respondent No,1 in the circumstances could not be interfered with in absence of good reasons.
6. Under the circumstances, we do not find substance and merit in these petitions, consequently leave to appeal is refused and the petitions are dismissed.