2011 P LC (C.S.) 548
[Quetta High Court]
Before Qazi Faez Isa, C.J.; Syeda Tahira Safdar and Ghulam Mustaf Mengal, JJ
MASHOOQ ALI
Vers us
SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE BALOCHISTAN and others
Constitutional Petition No.S -23 of 2009, decided on 1st July, 2010.
Per Qazi Faez Isa, C.J.; Syeda Tahira Safdar and Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, JJ.
agreeing and adding their notes.
Constitution of Pakistan ---
----Art. 199---Constitutional petition ---Civil service ---Petitioners challenged appointments of
Assistants and Stenographers made by Provincial Board of Revenue contending that said
appointments were made in violation of merit ---Validity ---Candidates who failed or even
absented in the written examination were appointed to the posts ---Departmental Selection
Committee did not award marks to candidates at the interview, instead, made certain
notings/signs against each candidate making the meri t list an impossibility, as such. list could
not be prepared unless marks obtained at the interview were added to the marks obtained in
written examination ---Candidates' skill in shorthand and typing was not evaluated either ---
Members of the Departmental S election Committee denied any wrongdoing; submitted false
affidavits but later tendered apologies to the court ---Senior Member of the Provincial Board
of Revenue admitted the violation of merit ---In view of statements of the Chairman and
Members of the Dep artmental Selection Committee as to violation of prescribed merit
criteria, the appointments could not be sustained ---Material discrepancies marred the
appointment process ---Fairness and merit having been sacrificed at the altar of favouritism
and corrupti on, the appointments were not sustainable either in fact or in law ---Whole
appointment process was a facade and a fraud played at the expense of precious resources of
the State ---High Court observed that Government was duty bound to make the selection
process transparent, as violation of merit led to bad governance and promoted culture of
corruption ---Petitioners' application to withdraw petitions in order to spare the appointees
their jobs could not be allowed as gross irregularities and illegalities commi tted in
appointments to government positions was not merely a private matter ---Directions as to
initiation of disciplinary action against Chairman and the Members of Departmental Selection
Committee were issued by the High Court ---Appointments were held/de clared to be illegal,
unconstitutional and without any legal effect conferring no right, title, interest benefit or
privilege in the appointees ---Provincial Government was directed by High Court to circulate
to all Ministries and heads of all departments a nd Member of Selection Committees the
relevant paragraph of the judgment which is to the effect that:
"Appointments to government posts are highly prized and sought after. The government is
obliged to ensure complete transparency in the process of select ion and appointment and
anything less is unacceptable. If qualified and competent individuals are appointed in
government service their performance and work would be far superior to those who have
come through the back door by having the right connections or by other - nefarious means.
The latter category would also not be motivated to work like those who had earned the
privilege. Consequently the public would suffer, and continue to suffer till the person
illegally appointed retires. Even thereafter the hel pless taxpayer would continue to bear the
burden on account of payment of pension and other benefits. The appointments made on
considerations other than merit perpetuate bad governance and a culture of corruption,
nepotism and sifarish. Betrayal of respons ibility occurs not just the day when an incompetent
or less qualified person is chosen, it continues each and every day such appointee continues
to hold the position that another was better qualified to. By making appointments contrary to
merit and for ext raneous considerations the Government's credibility is eroded, its overall
performance adversely affected and the public made to suffer. Whenever a post is advertised
those given the responsibility to select suitable candidates exercise an important trust. They
must acquit themselves honestly, to the best of their ability and without any fear or favour.
They must not tolerate interference from any source, including from Members of Parliament
or from Ministries. And if they do, or make recommendations on the basis of fear or favour
and or breach applicable rules or violate prescribed criteria they would be accountable and
inter alia be subject to disciplinary action ."
Per Syeda Tahira Safdar, J. agreeing with Qazi F a e z Isa, C.J.
Disciplinary action was required against Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Chairman and
the Members of Departmental Selection Committee for misleading the court by submitting
false affidavits and committing illegalities in selection process.
Per Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, J., agreei ng with Qazi Faez Isa, C.J.
----Selection process having been carried out by the Departmental Selection Committee, the
Senior Member, Board of Revenue only approved the recommendations of the Committee ---
Disciplinary action was not required against the S enior Member, Board of Revenue as he was
not directly concerned with conducting written examination and the interview.
Zahoor -ul-Haq Chishti and Kamran Murtaza for Private Parties.
Abdul Rahim Mengal, Asstt. Advocate -General.
Date of hearing: 30th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT
QAZI FAEZ ISA, C.J. --- Through this common judgment we propose to dispose of C.P.(S)
No.23 of 2009 and C.P.(S) No.57 of 2009, as vide order, dated 22 -10-2009 it had been
ordered that "both matters to be decided together". The p etitioners have assailed
appointments made in the Board of Revenue department of. the Government or Balochistan
alleging that the same were not made on the basis of merit and have sought to have the same
declared illegal, unlawful and of no legal effect.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Board of Revenue Baochistan through advertisement
placed in daily JANG of 6th August 2008 inter alia invited applications for the post of
Assistants (in grade B -14) and Stenographers (in grade B -12). The requirement for the post of
Assistant was for applicants to possess a Bachelors' degree from a recognized university and
to be able to type at the minimum speed or 30 words per minute. It was also mentioned that
those possessing computer skills would be given prefere nce. As regards the post of
Stenographers applicants were required to posses an Intermediate degree from a recognized
institution have the ability to write in shorthand at minimum speed of 100 words per minute
and be able to type at a minimum speed of 40 w ords per minute. The advertisement further
stated that applicants possessing computer skills would be given preference. The said
advertisement stipulated that time date of test and interview will be subsequently announced.
Pursuant to the aforesaid adverti sement another advertisement was placed in daily JANG of
18th December 2008 setting out the dates vide serial numbers for the written exam, which
ranged from 1st January 2009 through to 5th January, 2009. Thereafter vide advertisement
published in daily Ja ng on 5th February, 2009 interviews for the post of Assistants and
Stenographers were scheduled for 23rd and 24th February, 2009. As per the comments filed
by the official respondents about 912 applications were received, out of which 79 applicants
cleared the written test.
3. It would be appropriate to reproduce order, dated 22 -10-2009.
"This case was called earlier today when the learned Additional Advocate -General
filed comments on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 but surprisingly with
such comments the merit list in respect of the posts of Assistants and Stenographers in
the Board of Revenue Department was not attached. We had accordingly directed
learned Additional Advocate -General to send for the merit list from the concerned
department as the petitioner apprehended that if further opportunity is granted the
same will be prepared or tampered with. Now Mr. Javed Iqbal, Law Officer, Board of
Revenue has appeared before us and. slates that the directions of this court were
communicated to Secr etary Admin. Board of Revenue Department, but despite such
communication he has come empty handed and without merit list. This raises serious
concerns, accordingly we appoint Mr. Jehangir Alam, Judicial Magistrate to
accompany Mr. Javed Jabal, Law Officer read go to the office and take into his
custody the merit list."
It is regretful that the official respondents did not voluntarily proved the facts which were
required for the determination of this matter and which good governance, transparency and
justice demanded.
The original record that was taken into possession revealed that the persons who were given
jobs for Assistants received following marks in the written test: ---
S. No. Name/Father's Name Marks
1. Abdul Rab son of Abdul Karim 20
2. Qutab Khan son of Taj Muhammad 4
3. Wali Khan son of Taweez Khan 12
4. Ahmedullah son of Khan Alam 22
5. Muhammad Din son of Haji Mubeen 4
6. Tahir Khan son of Kamal Khan 19
7. Abdul Hadi son of Haji Abdul Sattar 24/18 Two papers
8. Bismillah son of Ubaidu llah 13
9. Muhammad Shafiq son of Inayatullah 20/20 Two papers
10. Bashir Ahmed son of Khair Muhammad 2
11. Jameel Ahmed son of Agha Muhammad 19
12. Abdul Bari son of Muhammad Hashim Paper not available
13. Naseebullah son of Haji Abdul Samad 6
14. Ahmed Yar son of Haji Khair Jan 18
15. Mir Adam Babar son of Sher Muhammad 20
16. Harneedullah son of Mehboobullah 20/19 Two papers
17. Mir Zaman son of Sultan Khan 11
18. Wall Muhammad son of H. Akhtar Muhammad 28
19. Alam Khan son of Muhammad Islam 16
20. Ahmed Nawaz Bugti son of Mir Hassan 21
21. Par Moth Kumar son of Raj Bahadur Paper not available
22. Wali Muhammad son of Agha Muhammad 14
23. Mehmood Ahmed son of Khair Muhammad 23
24. Allah Bakhsh son of Saleh Muhammad 22
25. Saghir Ahmed son of Abdul Hakeem 9
26. Zafarullah son of Bakhtiar Paper not available
27. Shah Khalid son of Kia Khan 21/13 Two papers
. 28. Hassan Ali son of Muhammad Siddiq 13
29. Shoukat Ali son of H. Allah Bakhsh Paper not available
30. Fazal Mehmood son of Noor Ahmed Paper not available
31. Mehhoob Ahmed son of Muhammad Hanif 17
32. Abdul Samad son of Raza Muhammad Paper not available
33. Habib -ur-Rehman son of Abdul Samad 11/18 Two papers
34. Muhammad Arif son of Noor Muhammad Paper not available
35. Gh lam Mustafa son of Allah Dina 22
36. Ratiq Ahmed son of Din Muhammad 22
27. Abdul Khaliq son of Abdul Ali 15
38. Haji Khan son of Rahim Bakhsh 12
Surprisingly persons, who got 2, 4 and 6 marks were also appointed and even those who did
not take the test . There were also a number of candidates who got considerably more marks
than the appointed individuals but were ignored.
The written test for the said posts constituted 60% marks and the viva constituted 40% marks.
Four persons constituted the Departmen tal Selection Committee namely, Nasrullah Tareen,
Secretary (Admin) Board of Revenue, Sheikh Asmat Ullah, Secretary (Revenue), Mehfooz
Ali, Assistant Secretary (Admin) Board of Revenue and Aziz -ur-Rehman, Assistant Secretary
(L.U.), Board of Revenue. The s ame persons also conducted the viva. The original record
taken into possession revealed that no marks were given by any of the said four interviewers
to the candidates and instead the following noting was made against their names: ---
"VV" "P", "C" "Clear ". "+ -+" or "Pass"
It is thus unascertainable as to the number of marks obtained by the candidates. It was only
after such marks were awarded that the same could have been added to the marks obtained in
the interview to arrive at a total, which would hav e enabled the preparation of the merit list,
showing what each applicant had scored. In the instant case no merit list was prepared, nor
could the same have been prepared, as no marks in respect of the interview (which
constituted 40% of the total marks) w ere awarded.
As regards stenographers the tests revealed that a written test was given but no test to gauge
the shorthand or typing ability was conducted.
6. In view of the fact that many of the successful candidates were not arrayed as parties vide
order, dated 5 -11-2009 the office was directed to issue notice to them. Vide order, dated 16 -
11-2009 it was notified that the petitions will be disposed of on merits. Messrs Bashartullah,
Muhammad Aslam Chishti and Mazhar Ilyas Naqi, Advocates were appointed as Amicus,
however in view of his ill health Mr. Basharatullah could not render assistance. The matter
was then heard at length. Though certain questions regarding the scope of the Balochistan
Public Service Act, 1989 were formulated, however, as the matt er can be decided on the basis
of existing material, it was not necessary to touch upon the same in the instant petitions.
7. The members of the Departmental Selection Committee, who were arrayed as respondents
filed comments denying any wrong doing. The said comments were supported by affidavits.
However, in view of the material and evidence that came on record the affidavits appeared to
be false. Accordingly on 5 -11-2009 it was ordered, that: -
"In view of the original record that has been taken into possession, such comments
appeared to be blatantly false. The comments are supported by affidavits of senior
officers. The learned Advocate General states that the whole exercise appears to be
tainted and that strict action should be taken against the pers ons filing false affidavits.
We agree with the learned A.G. and issue show -cause notice to Nasarullah Tareen,
Secretary (Admin) Board of Revenue, Sheikh Asmat Ullah, Secretary (Revenue),
Mehfooz Ali, Assistant Secretary (Admin) Board of Revenue and Aziz -ur-Rehman,
Assistant Secretary (L.U.), Board of Revenue and Shahbaz Khan Mandokhail, Senior
Member Board of Revenue as to why action should not be taken against them for
filing false comments and affidavits."
8. Sheikh Asmat Utah, Secretary (Revenue), Mr. Aziz -ur-Rehman, Assistant Secretary (L.U.)
and Mr. Mehfooz Ali, Assistant Secretary (Administration) Board of Revenue filed one reply
dated 14 -11-2009 to the show -cause notice, wherein they stated that they only conducted
interviews of candidates who were short -listed by the Chairman of the Departmental
Selection Committee and had no concern with the written tests. They further stated that the
original papers of the candidates were in "exclusive custody of the Chairman."
Additional identical affidavits we re filed on 7 -12-2009 in the following terms: ---
"At the very outset the deponent begs to tender unconditional apology for the
inconvenience caused to this honourable Court and places himself at the mercy of this
honourable Court, in relation to comments and affidavit filed by him. The deponent
cannot conceive of misleading this honourable Court. The deponent had no previous
experience of conducting interviews etc and has proceeded in the mater in good faith.
The Government of Balochistan has already ca ncelled the appointments made on the
basis of said examination and interviews and have also directed holding of
departmental inquiry against all concerned."
9. Mr. Nasrullah Khan Tarcen Secretary (Administration) Board of Revenue Chairman of the
Departme ntal Selection Committee filed affidavit dated 18 -12-2009 in the following terms: ---
"At the very outset the deponent tenders unconditional apology before this honourable
Court in relation to issuance of simple list of successful candidate rather than
exhibiting a merit list containing the marks obtained by each candidate in the overall
test and interview. The irregularities committed in the recruitment process were due to
inexperience in holding the test and interviews for the first time.
I place may s elf at the mercy of this honourable High Court humble prayer for
withdrawal of show -cause notice."
10. That Mr. Nasir Mehmood Khosa, Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan and Mr.
Ali Zaheer Hazara Secretary, S&GAD filed the following statement on 16 -11-2009.
"That after having knowledge of lack of transparency and fairness during recruitment
process of Board of Revenue Balochislan, Chief Secretary Balochistan, with the
approval of Chief Minister Balochistan has taken the following actions to ensure
transparency in recruitment process:
(i) Recent recruitments made in the Board of Revenue has been cancelled with
immediate effect and the process will be initiated afresh after seeking orders from
the Honorable High Court.
(ii) In BOR and all other d epartments, order to ensure transparency, representatives of
the S&GAD and Finance Department will be associated in the selection process.
(iii) Departmental and disciplinary action will he initiated against all those
officers/officials who committed tra nsgressions in the process.
11. The Chief Secretary also issued the following notification dated 14th November, 2009: --
"Subject: Recruitment Through Departmental Selection Committees.
The undersigned is directed to refer to the subject noted above a nd to say that
recruitment in B -1 to 15 posts is being made in all departments/attached departments
through Departmental Selection Committees. These Committees are constituted under
Rule 5 of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Trans fer)
Rules, 2009. The Competent Authority is of the view that in majority of the
departments the criteria for recruitment is not being observed, therefore, concerned
candidates and public -at-large shown their dissatisfaction on the process of selection.
Moreover recently the honourable High Court of Balochistan has also taken serious
notice of this situation. On the other hand the media has strongly criticized
Government of Balochistan on account of transparency and fairness in selection
process in Governme nt Departments.
(2) In order to ensure transparency, the Competent Authority has directed lo
reformulate the Departmental Selection Committee(s) by including the following
members in each Committee.
(i) Representative of S&GAD.
(ii) Representative of Finance Department.
(3) The undersigned is, therefore, directed to request you to forward proposal to this
Department for reconstitution/reformulation of the Departmental Selection
Committee(s), after obtaining the name of representative of Finance Depa rtment.
(4) The above instruction may kindly be strictly adhered to in letter and spirit."
It may be mentioned that Notifications dated 25 -11-2008 and 4 -12-2008 removed the
representatives of the Finance and Services and General Administration Departme nts from
the Departmental Selection Committee, leaving the representatives of the Board of Revenue
alone to undertake the tests and interviews. The said two notifications gave no reason as to
why the Departmental Selection Committee was reconstituted by re moval of the
representatives of Finance and S&GAD Departments.
12. That the Senior Member Board of Revenue stated on 16-11-2009, which statement was
incorporated in the order of the same date, that, "appointments in his department were not
made properly and merit was by -passed." Earlier on 5 -11-2009 the learned Advocate -General
stated that, "the whole exercise appears to be tainted.
13. In view of the aforesaid statements including statements made by the Chairman and
Members of the Departmental Selectio n Committee on record the appointments that were
made are clearly not sustainable. We have also noted the following material discrepancies in
the appointment Process: --
(1) Test papers of many of the candidates, who were appointed, were not available. As no
explanation was offered by anyone where these papers went it may be presumed that
they never took the test.
(2) Many candidates failed in the written test, some getting abysmally low marks (2, 4, 6
and 9), yet they were appointed.
(3) Even those wh o failed the written test were invited for the interview in violation of
the prescribed procedure which stipulated that only those who passed the test would
be invited for interview.
(4) No marks were awarded in the interview. Since the test commanded 60 marks and the
interview 40 marks it was only once the marks obtained in the test were added to
those obtained in the interview that determination of the best qualified for
appointment could be made. However, as no marks were awarded for the interview
there was no way of determining the total marks obtained by the applicants.
(5) No test to determine the ability to type was conducted despite the fact that typing
skills was a stipulated requirement for both posts, which in the case of the post of
Assistant s was a minimum speed of 30 words per minute and in the case of
Stenographers was a minimum speed of 40 words per minute.
(6) The advertisement for both posts (Assistants and Stenographers) stipulated that those
possessing computer skills would be given preference, but the applicants' computer
skills were not checked.
(7) Stenographers were required to possess ability to write in shorthand at a minimum
speed of 100 words per minute, but no test was conducted to ascertain the applicants'
ability in this regard.
(8) No merit list was prepared, which in any case was impossible to prepare in view of
the aforesaid deficiencies:
The learned counsel for the private parties respectively Mr. Zahoor -ul-Haq Chishti and Mr.
Kamran Murtaza did not dispute the afo resaid facts and simply stressed that the persons were
properly appointed. We also heard a number of private respondents in person but they too did
not dispute the said facts.
14. Therefore it is reasonable to presume that the appointments that were made either on the
basis of favoritism, nepotism, influence and or corruption and by sacrificing truth and merit.
Such appointments are not sustainable in fact or in law. Those possessing the requisite
qualification and skills were entitled to compete, and as per the comments filed, 912
applicants wanted to do so, but they merely wasted their time, money and effort. The
resources of the State too were wasted in futile exercise of placing advertisements in the
national press. The whole exercise as it turned out was a charade and the entire process
nothing but a hoax and fraud. The fact that holders or grade B -12 and B -14 posts may
eventually on account of seniority attained, be promoted to higher echelons of Government
Service makes the duty cast on the Governmen t, and those through whom such duty is
exercised, all the more important. Regretfully in the instant case this duty was observed only
in the breach.
15. Appointments to government posts are highly prized and sought after the Government is
obliged to ensu re complete transparency in the process of selection and appointment and
anything less is unacceptable. If qualified and competent individuals are appointed in
Government Service their performance and work would be far superior to those who have
come throu gh the back door by having the right connections or by other nefarious means. The
latter category would also not be motivated to work like those who have earned the privilege.
Consequently the public would suffer, and continue to suffer till the person ill egally
appointed retires. Even thereafter the hapless taxpayer would continue to bear the burden on
account of payment of pension and other benefits. The appointments made on considerations
other than merit perpetuate bad governance and a culture of corrup tion; nepotism and
Sifarish. Betrayal of responsibility occurs not just the day when an incompetent or less
qualified person is chosen, it continues each and every day such appointee continues to hold
the position that another was better qualified to. By m aking appointments contrary to merit
and for extraneous considerations the Government's credibility is eroded, its overall
performance adversely effected and the public made to suffer. Whenever a post is advertised
those given the responsibility to select suitable candidates exercise an important trust. They
must acquit themselves honestly, to the best of their ability and without any fear or favour.
They must not tolerate interference from any source, including from Members of Parliament
or from Ministries . And if they do, or make recommendations on the basis of fear or favour
and or breach applicable rules or violate prescribed criteria they would be accountable and
inter alia be subject to disciplinary action.
16. It may be mentioned that alter we had t aken cognizance of the matter the petitioners,
through their attorney, submitted an application (C.M.A. No.228 of 2009) on 8 -12-2009
seeking withdrawal of the petitions as he was not prepared to suffer adverse consequences if
the appointees lost their jobs . In view of the fact that the dispute was not simply a private
matter, involved State resources, and large scale irregularities and illegalities in appointments
made to government positions had come to the surface the said application could not be
granted . Moreover, if such permission was granted there is the danger that Courts may be
used for extraneous purposes; to settle scores, to extract benefits or to strike bargains.
Through the said application the petitioners however could forgo their right, if an y, to the
advertised posts vis -a-vis the appointees. Accordingly, C.M.A. No.228 of 2009 is granted
only to the extent that the petitioners forgo their right, if any, to the said posts.
17. It also needs to be considered what, any, action needs to he take n against the Chairman
and Members of the Departmental Selection Committee who submitted false affidavits and
attempted to mislead the Court. Subsequently, when an opportunity was provided to them to
set the record straight, an apology was submitted and it was stated by way of excuse that they
did not have previous experience of conducting tests and interviews. However, the illegalities
have been noted above cannot be excused simply on the ground of lack of requisite
experience. Be that as it may, by way of indulgence and grace contempt action is not being
initiated and because the Chief Secretary and Secretary, S&GAD have stated that
"Departmental and disciplinary action will be initiated against all those officers/officials who
committed transgressions in the process". If however, disciplinary action has as yet not been
initiated' against the Chairman and Members of the Departmental Selection Committee, we
direct that the same be initiated immediately inter alia in respect of the eight (8)
transgressions no ted above in paragraph thirteen (13).
18. We have thus no hesitation in holding that the appointments made to the posts of
Assistants and Stenographers in the Board of Revenue, Government of Balochistan pursuant
to the said advertisements were illegal, u nconstitutional and have no legal effect and create
no right, title, interest, benefit and or privilege in the appointees. The said appointees may
however participate, provided they possess the requisite qualifications and skills, if
applications for the s aid posts are again invited.
19. To prevent against such type of malpractices and illegalities from occurring in the future
and with a view to serve as a warning to all concerned the Government of Balochistan is
directed to circulate paragraph fifteen (1 5) above to all Ministries, Heads of Departments and
Members of all Departmental Selection Committees.
20. In view of the fact that the Chairman and Members of the Departmental Selection
Committee of the Board of Revenue Department stated that they had n o previous experience
in conducting tests and interviews and as the same may also be the position with regard to the
members of other departmental selection committees and as the Balochistan Public Service
Commission has been specifically established by st atute for conducting tests and
examinations for recruitment to Balochistan Civil Services, etc. the Government of
Balochistan may consider the making of appointments to the posts of Assistants,
Stenographers and other officials in grade 10 and above throug h the IM Balochistan Public
Service Commission.
(Sd.)
(Qazi Faez Isa)
Chief Justice
Petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms and directions.
Though I agree with the findings arrived at by the learned Chief Justice I am of the view that
disciplinary action should also be taken against Shahbaz Khan Mandokhel, Senior Member
Board of Revenue and in this regard have attached my separate note.
(Sd.)
Syeda Tahira Safdar, J.
SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J. --- Though I agree with the findings arrived at by the learned
Chief Justice, but in addition to the same keeping in view the record and circumstances of the
case I am of the view that not only the Chairman and Members of Departmental Selection
Committee are the persons responsible for all acts which resulted in such -like a situation
while they are not the only officers who filed false affidavits thus attempted to mislead this
Court. Rather, parawise comments were filed jointly by official respondents i.e. Nos.1 -A to 5
contending therein that the appo intments were made lawfully observing the laid down
procedure, codal formalities, purely on merits, while no illegalities and irregularities have
been committed by the competent Authority or by the Committee. This parawise comments
was accompanied by affid avits of Shahbaz Khan Mandokhel, Senior Member Board of
Revenue, the appointing Authority, Nasarullah Tareen, Secretary (Admn.) Board of Revenue,
the Chairman of Departmental Selection Committee, Sheikh Asmatullah Secretary Revenue,
Board of Revenue, Aziz -ur-Rehman, Secretary, Balochistan Land Commission, Board of
Revenue and Mehfooz Ali Farooqi Assistant Secretary (Admn.), Board of Revenue, all the
three are Members of Departmental Selection Committee. Though the Chairman and
Members of Departmental Select ion Committee tendered their apology before this Court but
the Senior Member Board of Revenue despite his statement before the Court on 16 -11-2009
that "appointments in his Department were not made properly and merit was by -passed which
amounts to his admi ssion of the act, did not file any statement apologizing for his act.
Furthermore, in the statement submitted by Chief Secretary Balochistan and Secretary
S&GAD on 16 -11-2009, responsibility is specifically fixed on Senior Member Board of
Revenue, being th e competent Authority.
Keeping in view these facts disciplinary action is not only required to be taken against
Chairman and Members of Departmental Selection Committee, but disciplinary action is also
required to be taken against Shahbaz Khan Mandokhel, Senior Member Board of Revenue
the appointing/competent Authority, further including all those officers/ officials who
committed transgressions in the process.
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J. --- These Constitution Petitions were heard by the
honourable Member s of the Division Bench of this Court comprising of honourable Chief
Justice, Qazi Faez Isa and Justice Syeda Tahira Safdar. The judgment written by honourable
Chief Justice was gone through by the honorable Senior Member of the Bench and she found
herself agree with the 'findings arrived at by the honourable Chief Justice but she is of the
opinion/view that disciplinary action should also be taken against Mr. Shahbaz Khan
Mandokhail, the then Senior Member Board of Revenue, who is also responsible being
appointing/competent authority for the appointments.
I also agree with the conclusion drawn and findings arrived at by the honourable Chief
Justice on the basis of the material available on record of the case. Since the facts and points
involved have been sufficiently explained and dealt with in the Judgment, passed by the
honourable Chief Justice, therefore, there is no need to repeat the same. I was only required
to determine the point whether disciplinary action is also required to be taken against Mr.
Shahbaz Khan Mandokhail, the then Senior Member Board of Revenue Baluchistan.
I have heard Syed Ayaz Zahoor, Advocate, learned counsel for Mr. Shahbaz Khan
Mandokhail and Mr. Abdul Rahim Mengal, Assistant Advocate -General and also perused the
record of th e case.
Perusal of the record reveals that on 16 -11-2009 Mr. Shahbaz Khan Mandokhail, the then
Senior Member Board of Revenue Baluchistan appeared before the Bench and made a
statement that appointments in the department were not made properly and merit was by -
passed. Though, he has not stated this in the reply to show -cause notice. However, he sought
permission to file a fresh affidavit. He was permitted to do so, and on the same day he
submitted reply to show -cause notice, the contents whereof shows tha t before making
publications in the News -papers the prior approval of the Government of Balochistan through
Services and General Administration Department was sought vide letter dated 29 -8-2008 and
departmental Selection Committee consisting of a Chairman i.e. Secretary (Admen.) Board of
Revenue and time Members i.e. Secretary (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Secretary
Balochistan Land Commission and Assistant Secretary (Admn.) Board of Revenue was
constituted vide Notification dated 4th December, 2008 and after constitution of departmental
selection committee for appointment in BPS-15 and below he had no concern or connection in
inviting of applications, conduct of written tests and interviews, which was the exclusive
task/responsibility of the departmental sele ction committee and being a Senior Member Board of
Revenue Balochistan had legally not authorized to interfere in the test and interviews, which were
carried out by the departmental selection committee and he had to only approve the
recommendations of the departmental selection committee and then to issue appointment orders
of the candidates.
Thus in view of the above reasons and facts of the case, I have no hesitation to say that as Mr.
Shahbaz Khan Mandokhail, the then Senior Member Board of Revenue Bal uchistan, had no
direct concern with the conduct of written test and interviews of the candidates, therefore, there is
no need of taking any disciplinary action against him in any way/in one way or the other.
A.R.K./111/Q Petitions accepted.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.