Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHALID KHAN VS Respondent: SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE
1995 P L C (C
1995 P L C (C.S.) 1142
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ., Irshad Hasan Khan and Muhammad Bashir Khan Jehangiri, JJ
KHALID KHAN
Versus
SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 541 of 1994, decided on 5th
April, 1995. (From the judgment dated 27‑10‑1994 of the Service Tribunal, N: W.F.P. Peshawar in Appeal No. 229 of 1994).
West Pakistan Naib‑Tehsildari and Tehsildari Services Rules, 1962‑‑‑
--R. 5 [as adopted by Government of North‑West Frontier Province]‑‑ Delegation of Powers (Relaxation of Age) Rules, 1961‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212 (3)‑‑‑Forty per cent, of vacancies of Naib‑Tehsildars were reserved for ministerial staff to be filled on basis of selection on merit‑‑ Two posts of Naib‑Tehsildars were available for ministerial quota for which list of 37 officials including petitioner was drawn up and placed before Departmental Promotion Committee‑‑‑Petitioner haying not been selected by Departmental Selection Committee filed departmental appeal and, thereafter, filed appeal before Service Tribunal, but to no effect‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether selection on merit from amongst members of ministerial service to the post of Naib‑Tehsildar was valid under R. 5 of the Rules without manifestly laying down criteria for comparative evaluation of merits of candidates and further that in view of availability of sufficient number of eligible competing candidates, relaxation in upper age limit granted to one of the respondents was not covered by the Delegation of Powers (Relaxation of Age) Rules, 1961 and North‑West Frontier Province Services and General Administration Circular Letter No. S.O.R.1 (S&GA.D.) 1‑117/91(c), dated 12th October, 1993.
Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi PLD 1991 SC 14 rel.
Syed Jamshed Ali, Advocate Supreme Court alongwith Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
K.G. Sabir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J: ‑‑The method of recruitment of Naib‑Tehsildars under section 5 (1) of the West Pakistan Naib Tehsildari 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:‑‑
I.
"(a) sixty per cent of the vacancies shall be filled in by initial recruitment through the Public Service Commission, of which ten per cent shall be reserved for ex‑service men; and
(b) the remaining vacancies shall be filled in by selection on merit from the subordinate service in the Division where the vacancies occur, preference being given to persons with settlement experience."
It would thus be noticed that 40 per cent of the vacancies of Naib Tehsildars 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 evoke 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 Naib Tehsildar 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 Naib sTehsildar 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 body delegated 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.
AA./K‑271/S Leave granted.