CJ can’t circumvent selection process thru’ Rule 26

[ghazi52]

CJ can’t circumvent selection process thru’ Rule 26: LHC​

Wajih Ahmad Sheikh
April 17, 2025


A Lahore High Court (LHC) special division bench has ruled that the power of the chief justice under “Rule 26” does not confer unfettered or unguided authority to circumvent the established regular selection process.

The special bench observed this in its judgement dismissing the appeals of those officers whose appointments were made under rule 26 of the high court establishment rules but later withdrawn by the LHC.

The appellants namely Ammar Aziz and Hafiz Syed Fahad Iftikhar were appointed as Assistant Registrars (BS-18), whereas another appellant namely Saifullah was appointed as Admin Office Coordinator (BS-17) on Dec 27, 2019.

Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi, the author of the judgement, observed that these appointments undoubtedly were made bypassing the transparent recruitment process provided under the relevant service rules, particularly the provisions related to the advertisement of posts, eligibility, and competitive examination.

Special bench dismisses appeals of officials

However, he said, it appears that the authority soon realised its mistake and just four days after the issuance of the appointment letters, withdrew them.

A counsel for the respondent authority/LHC registrar also argued that it was expressly stated in the appointment orders of the appellants that their services could be terminated at any time without notice or assigning reasons.

He said the withdrawal of the appointments was in compliance with the applicable laws/rules. He further submitted that since the appellants’ appointments were conditional and the probationary period had not elapsed, the withdrawals were valid and lawful.

Justice Sethi noted that indubitably merit-based appointments uphold the principles of fairness, transparency and equal opportunity ensuring that positions are awarded to the most qualified and competent individuals.

“This not only strengthens institutional integrity and public trust but also upholds the rule of law and the democratic values of equal opportunity for all,” the judge maintained.

He stated that public institutions bear the obligation to act fairly, justly, reasonably, and transparently.

The judge observed that the bench previously determined that the power of selection under rule 7 of the High Court (Lahore) Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules could not be used arbitrarily to select preferred officers without considering all eligible officers awaiting promotion.

In the present case, the judge maintained, the appointment process was fundamentally flawed as no public advertisement was issued, no written examination was conducted and interviews were administered without established objective criteria to transparently evaluate the candidates’ qualifications.

“We emphatically direct that future vacancies must be filled strictly in accordance with the spirit of Articles 18, 25, and 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which collectively guarantee the right to enter any lawful profession, equality before law, and safeguards against discrimination in services,” said the bench, which also comprises Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq.

The bench also disposed of an appeal by Akmal Khan, a former senior court associate (BS-19), who is often dubbed as a whistleblower, challenging the appointments/promotions/award of increments granted by the LHC to the officers/officials in violation of applicable law/rules and pronouncements of the superior courts.

He also sought his regular/time scale promotion and upgradation having become due since 2009.

The bench observed that appellant Akmal Khan retains the right to approach the competent authority through a fresh representation regarding his regular/time scale promotion and upgradation.

“Such representation, if submitted, shall be adjudicated strictly in accordance with the applicable law,” the bench concluded.

Published in Dawn, April 17th, 2025