' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.--- The grievance of the petitioner is that the condition of a qualifying departmental promotion exam imposed by WAPDA should be waived in line with the policy of the Federal Government. This policy is contained in a directive dated 6-8-2003 and is sought to be enforced by the petitioner pursuant to the terms of section 3(3) of the WAPDA Act, 1958.
2. On the other hand the counsel for WAPDA has explained that the condition of a qualifying exam is meant to promote objectivity and transparency in promotions by furnishing the latest objective assessm ent of a candidate's merit for the consideration of the Promotion Committee. Accordingly, on that ground the respondent authorities have declined to implement the policy decision of the Government dated 6-8-2003. In this respect, the. Federal Government has approved the stand of WAPDA vide letter, dated 19-1-2004 by the Cabinet Division stating that the instructions are not meant for employees of autonomous organization and only for employees of Ministries/Divisions and Attached Departments.
3. The provisions of section 18 of the WAPDA Act, 1958 confer exclusive authority upon WAPDA to determine the terms and conditions of service of its employees. The clarification given by the Federal Government exempting autonomous organizations from the directive reinforces the statutory mandate. As such, therefore, the policy of the Federal Government, dated 6-8-2003 does not having binding effect on the terms and conditions of employees of WAPDA. In any event, the writ jurisdiction is exercised to promote justice. An executive measure that promotes merit and transparency obviously finds support from the Court. Accordingly, the petitioner's effort to avoid objective reassessm ent of candidates for promotion, therefore, does not meet with success. .