' SYED MANSOOR ALI.SHAH, J.--- This consolidated judgment shall also decide writ petitions mentioned in Schedule-A along with the titled petition. Petitioners had applied for the posts of Assistant Lineman (ALM), Meter Reader, Commercial Assistant and Naib Qasid. All these petitions air the same grievance and raise identical questions of law and facts and are, therefore, being decided through this consolidated judgment.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Faisalabad Electric Supply Company ("FESCO") publicly advertised vacancies (n 22 different categories of posts, including the above posts, in Urdu and English dailies namely: "fang" and "Daily Express" on 2-11-2008. The said public advertisement was restricted for candidates domiciled in Districts Bhakkar, Faisalabad, Toba Tek Singh, Mianwali, Sargodha and Khushab.
3. Petitioners eagerly applied for the abovementioned posts under Direct Quota and Employees'
Children Quota along with their testimonials. Petitioners were issued Interview Call Letters and thereafter they appeared to be interviewed by the concerned Selection Board of the area. The requirement of written test was dispensed with, as is described more fully later in the judgment.
Principal grievance of the petitioners is that the Selection Boards simply marked their presence as they went in for the interview. No question was asked and they were told that the interview has been concluded. The mode and manner of conducting interviews lead the petitioners to assume that FESCO is not interested to fill the said vacancies. However, the petitioners later on found out to their dismay that all the posts had been filled. Petitioners allege that they have been deprived of their long awaited chance to a lawful employment and what has aggravated their injury is the skewed and selective appointments based solely on political favourtism, disregarding merit. It is vehemently and somewhat poignantly contended by the petitioners that appointments were even made from outside the group of districts mentioned in the advertisement. It was submitted that the entire recruitment process was the work of a hidden political hand, which successfully orchestrated the recruitment process to its own advantage by dictating, autonomous public sector companies to violate their own recruitment policy. It was argued that the appointments were made in violation of the Recruitment Policy, 1992 which was heartlessly and unlawfully modified to achieve the desired benefit for the concerned quarters.
4. Messrs Muhammad Ilyas Khan, Khawaja Tariq Rahim, Aurangzeb Mirza, Shahid Karim, Mian Abdul Qudoos, and Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat, Advocates interchangeably appeared on behalf of FESCO, as well as, Pakistan Electric Power Supply Company ("PEPCO"). Muhammad Ilyas Khan Advocate, one of the counsel for FESCO, vehemently, raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the instant petition.
5. His objections were that writ petition against FESCO does not lie as it is merely a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. He further submitted that the principle of "master and servant" applies in the present case as the petitioners are not governed by any statutory rules of service and lastly, the instant matter involves factual inquiry and therefore, writ is not an appropriate remedy. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Executive District Officer Schools and Literacy, District Dir Lower and others v. Qamar Dost Khan and others 2006 SCM R 1630, Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Secretary Government of the. Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Development, Lahore and another 2006 SCM R 783 and Maqbool ,Ahmad v. Pakistan Agricultural and others 2006 SCM R 470.
6. On merits, counsel for PEPCO/FESCO submitted that as the last date for receipt of applications was 15-3-2009. On the said date 86,102 applications were received, however, only 44,656 candidates appeared in the interview under the Direct Quota out of which 1306 were appointed and only 1100 joined the said posts. Under the Employees' Children Quota, 3,477 candidates applied, 2,464 appeared in the interview and only 313 candidates were appointed while only 247 joined the service. Therefore, a total number of 1,347 candidates joined the posts and out of this 101 candidates were not domiciled from the group of advertised districts.
7. It was submitted that the recruitment was initiated on the basis of Recruitment Policy, 1992 framed by WAPDA and adopted by the Board of Directors of PEPCO and FESCO independently. The Recruitment Policy, 1992 was prepared in line with the "GOP [Government of Pakistani Policy Parameters like open advertisement of the vacancies in the National Press and conducting written tests and interviews of the eligible candidates." After the public advertisement for the vacant posts on 2-11-2008, Managing Director ("M.D.") PEPCO issued Letter dated 15-10-2009 on the direction of the Minister for Water and Power, whereby deviation was made in the Recruitment Policy, 1992 and the requirement of written test was dispensed with, replacing it with only a Walk-In Interview.
8. The marks for the written test (65 marks) were added into the interview marks making the total marks allocated for the Walk-In Interview to be 90, while 10 marks were to be awarded for higher qualifications. Counsel for FESCO/PEPCO submitted that 11 (eleven) Selection Boards were constituted to conduct the Walk-In Interviews at various centres located at Joharabad, Jhang, Toba Tek Singh, Faisalabad and Sargodha. It is contended that the appointments were made strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of merit.
9. When counsel for the respondents were asked whether there was any objective criterion framed for the purposes of carrying out interviews by PEPCO, FESCO or the Selection Boards, the counsel candidly submitted that no objective criterion was framed and the interviews were conducted purely on discretionary basis. Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), LESCO appeared in person and was directed to place on record the interview proceedings/workings of the Selection Boards so that the Court could assess and satisfy itself regarding the uniform basis and parameters employed by all the Selection Boards while interviewing candidates for the posts. Chief Executive Officer categorically submitted that no record of proceedings of the Selection Boards was available. Chief Executive Officer made a statement to this effect in writing before the Court, which is dated 12-7- 2010 and has been placed on the record as mark "A" which states:- "The undersigned had checked from the head of all Selection Boards constituted for selection of FESCO employees in various categories. They informed that after the induction/consolidation of the selection results at FESCO Headquarters, Faisalabad, the Officer Incharge of Selection Board of various centres did not retain the record of the proceedings of Selection Board, since they had signed consolidated computerized results and as a record was not required to be retained under any rules."
10. The CEO also confirmed that no objective criterion was framed for the purposes of the interviews by FESCO or the Selection Boards.
11. Counsel for PEPCO was asked how MD, PEPCO single handedly modified Recruitment Policy, 1992, dispensing with the requirement of the written test which is provided for in the Government of Pakistan Policy parameters for recruitment ? And whether the Board of Directors of PEPCO had authorised the MD, PEPCO to issue letter dated 15-10-2009? Counsel for PEPCO sought time and on the next date of hearing placed on record the extracts of the Board Resolution passed by the Board of Directors of PEPCO dated 24-5-2010 whereby ex-post facto ratification was granted to the letter dated 15-10-2009 issued by MD, PEPCO. He further submitted that PEPCO has to follow the Government instructions, which have been noted in letter dated 15-10-2009.
12. On 8-7-2010, Mr. Abid Ali Chaudhry, Assistant Registrar (Criminal-II) of this Court was appointed as a Local Commissioner who was directed to immediately leave for the Head Office of FESCO, Faisalabad and to undertake the following tasks:--- "(1) To obtain a copy of the Recruitment Policy/notification followed by FESCO for the present appointments.
(2) To obtain a copy of the notification/letter through which Selection Boards were appointed, showing the names of the members of the said Selection Boards.
(3) Letter/notification showing the objective criterion framed by FESCO for the purposes of carrying out interviews or the appointments in the present cases.
(4) The local commission will take up 10 cases at random of the petitioners (maintained by respondent FESCO) and place his stamp and signatures on all the pages of the said files. He will do the same by taking 10 cases at random of the persons appointed by FESCO and place his stamp and signatures on all the pages of the said files.
(5) In case any of the above is missing and FESCO fails to furnish the same to the satisfaction of the local commission, he will record the statement of Director, HR&A to that effect and procure the signatures of the said Director on the said statement."
13. The Report of the Local Commission dated 12-7-2010 has been placed on record. No written objections have been filed against the said Report and none of the counsel controverted the contents and findings of the said Report during their arguments.
14. On 29-4-2010, FESCO was directed to issue notices to all the candidates who were appointed as Assistant Lineman, Meter Readers, Commercial Assistants and Naib Qasids so that their presence before the Court is ensured. Notices were duly issued to all the appointees in the above category out of which 65 appointees appeared before this Court through counsel. Counsel for the appointees submitted that they have been appointed through a lawful process of interview and once the said appointment has been made, any lapse or irregularity committed by the department cannot affect the appointments of the said persons and placed reliance on Muhammad Zahid Iqbal and others v. D.E.O. Mardan and others 2006 SCM R 285. They further argued that the principle of locus poenitentiae also applies in the present case. They contended that they were appointed after fulfilling all the requirements and the procedure laid out by respondent FESCO and, therefore, cannot be deprived of their rightful appointment. It was also contended that the said appointments were for a period of one year and already six months had elapsed, therefore, interference by this Court at this stage would be harsh and will unduly affect the appointees.
15. Arguments heard. Record perused.
16. I shall first address the preliminary objections raised by Mr: Muhammad Ilyas Khan, .Advocate appearing on behalf of FESCO. Admittedly, FESCO is owned by the Federal Government and is therefore a State owned company and hence an instrumentality of the State performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation. It is now settled and trite law that State owned companies are amenable to writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Pakistan International Airline Corporation and others v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman and others PLD 2010 SC 676.
17. The second preliminary objection regarding application of the principle of "master and servant" is misconceived as it is not the terms and conditions of service which are under challenge in the instant petitions but the mode and manner of recruitment followed by a public sector company which is in question. It is an obligation of a public institution to act fairly, justly, reasonably and transparently. In the present case, it has been agitated that the Recruitment Policy, 1992 has been violated. In spite of public advertisement, sham interviews have been conducted without any common and prefixed objective criterion to transparently judge and evaluate the candidacy of the applicants. It is submitted by the petitioners that the process adopted by FESCO and its Selection Boards is blatantly devoid of due process; it deprives the petitioners of their right to lawful employment and livelihood and discriminately ousts the petitioners from the recruitment process in violation of Articles 4, 18 and 25 of the Constitution. Therefore, the objection regarding "master and servant" is misplaced and without force.
18. The last preliminary objection is regarding factual controversy involved in the present case. This objection also has no force as it has been admitted by the counsel, as well as, the Chief Executive Officer and the Director, Human Resource (later in the judgment) that no objective criterion was framed for the purposes of conducting interviews. Further, the authority of MD, PEPCO to issue Letter dated 15-10-2009 and the blind implementation of the same by FESCO is a legal question that can be easily addressed in the present constitutional proceedings. I, therefore, reject all the three preliminary objections raised by respondent FESCO as being frivolous and misconceived.
19. On merits these petitions raise the following questions of public law and institutional importance:---
(a) Can appointments be made on the basis of Walk-In Interviews without a pre-fixed objective criterion shared amongst all the Selection Boards (interviewers) by FESCO or PEPCO to maintain a uniform objective selection process? Whether failure to do so offends Articles 4, 18 and 25 of the Constitution besides affronting the principles of social and economic justice?
(b) Whether in the absence of any record, minutes or notes of the proceedings, it could be inferred that discretion was not lawfully and transparently exercised by the interviewing members of the Selection Boards?
(c) Whether M.D, PEPCO could single handedly on the "advice" of the Minister for Water and Power, temporarily amend the Recruitment Policy framed by WAPDA under the guidelines of the Federal Government?
(d) Whether Board of Directors of a public sector company is competent to grant ex post facto ratification without giving reasons?
(e) Whether, management of FESCO could blindly implement the decision of M.D. PEPCO without first placing the same (Letter dated 15-10-2009) before the Board of Directors of FESCO and getting their approval?
20. To answer these questions, it will be useful to sketch the chronological sequence of events:---
(i) PEPCO (Human Resource Directorate) communicated to FESCO vide letter dated 30-10-2008, that Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division has been pleased to grant NOC for "advertisement only" of 1195 vacant positions spread over 22 different posts from BPS-1 to 14.
(ii) Through the same letter FESCO was directed to ensure that advertisement appears 'in two daily Urdu newspapers having wide circulation preferably for 2-11-2003 (Sunday).
(iii) The advertisement appeared in "Jhang" and "Daily Express" Faisalabad on 2-11-2008. The public advertisements were for 22 different posts and specifically stated that the posts had to be filled by residents domiciled in Districts: Faisalabad, Bhakkar, T.T. Singh, Sargodha, Mianwali and Khushab (the geographical service region of FESCO). The present petitioners applied for the posts of Assistant Lineman (ALM), Meter Reader, Commercial Assistant and Naib Qasid.
(iv) Vide Letter dated 10-11-2008 with the subject: Exemption From Ban on Recruitment, PEPCO informed FESCO that selection process of the advertised posts "is restricted at this stage till further instructions." This was perhaps due to the Ban on Recruitment as the title of the Letter suggests.
(v) Vide Letter dated 16-12-2008 of PEPCO, last date for submission of applications was extended till 15- 1-2009. FESCO vide its Letter dated 17-1-2009 reported to PEPCO that 80,173 applications had been received in all 22 categories in response to advertisement dated 2-11-2008 with the closing date of 13-11-2008 and more applications were expected as the date was extended.
(vi) PEPCO vide Letter dated 12-2-2009 wrote to all the corporatized entities (including FESCO) the following:--- {{TABLE}} "Corporatized Entities may complete the recruitment process in a fair and transparent manner at their own strictly in line with the applicable instructions rules and recruitment policy....
PEPCO, however, as a part of its Mandate, will continue its routine and normal surveillance, covering selection process through in-house arrangements. This is issued with the approval of the Managing Director PEPCO" {{TABLE}}
(vii) Vide Letter dated 19-2-2009 issued by PEPCO, the last date for the receipt of applications was once again extended to 15-3-2009. This was done in view of letter of Ministry of Water and Power dated 19-2-2009 whereby the ban on recruitment was lifted.
(viii)On 26-3-2009 PEPCO informed the DISCOs (including LESCO) that "The competent authority has been pleased to allow for further proceeding with Recruitment Process for the posts, cleared for advertisement only. Please ensure strict compliance with laid down procedures/recruitment policies and all applicable Service Rules and instructions issued from time to time."
(ix) At the time of the Public Advertisement dated 2-11-2008 till the issuance of Letter dated 15-1- 2009, the New Recruitment Policy for WAPDA Employees Grade-1-15 (settled vide Office Memorandum 'dated 25-1-1992) was in vogue. The said Recruitment Policy states: NEW RECRUITMENT POLICY FOR WAPDA EMPLOYEES GRADE 1-15 Adopting the new Recruitment
(1) Policy of the Federal Government, WAPDA has accordingly modified its own Recruitment Policy.
The new policy adopted by WAPDA is at annexure "A" covering all grades of employees, with special emphasis on merit, elimination of discretion and including the monitoring role of Public Representatives.
(2) Previously merit was determined with the help of subjective/trade tests. Now only objective test has been introduced for Grade 3---15 recruitment, specimen of which is enclosed depending upon the specific recruitment of each trade. Papers for objective tests may be prepared on these lines.
(3) The new Recruitment Policy is to be followed strictly in letter and spirit.
' Authority: Director-General (S&GA) WAPDA's Circular No, DG/AD(E. IB)/7225-Re-5045-5203 dated 25-1-1992.
Annexure "A"
GUIDELINES FOR RECRUITMENT OF STAFF IN BPS 1-15
(1) In supersession of all previous instructions on the subject a new Recruitment Policy has been approved by WAPDA on the basis of the one announced by the Federal Government, laying emphasis on elimination of discretion and the monitoring role of Public Representatives. Salient features of the new Recruitment Policy are as under:--
(a) All recruitments will be made in February and August every year.
(b) Advertisement in the electronic media/National Newspapers (at least in 2 dailies) will be made with 30 days notice and on Sundays only.
(c) Posts in BPS 1-2 will not be advertised. Whenever there is a need to fill in these vacancies concerned formation will ask for application from Secretary WAPDA in addition to applications available in the concerned office
(d) Posts for various Grades i.e, (BPS 1-15) will be advertised.
(e) Qualifications where prescribed in Service Rules for various grades will be strictly adhered to.
(f) All appointments are to be made strictly on Merit basis on experienced / academic /technical qualification.
(g) No weightage will be given to interview, unless essential for the post.
(h) No ad hoc appointments will be made.
(i) Age relaxation will not be allowed when candidates of correct age are available. However, candidate who may become over age as a result of ban imposed by the Government since November, 1990 the age limit may be relaxed by 1-1/2 years till 31-12-1992.
2.
' Objective/Trade test will be organized for all advertised post by the respective formations, where considered necessary.
3. Selection Board ' Posts of BPS 1-4 Members not below the rank of BPS 17 officer.
For all advertised posts.--Selection Board will be as per WAPDA Service Rules.
4. Appointing Authority ' As per existing delegation of administrative powers laid down in Service Rules.
5. Domicile ' All direct recruitees should be domiciled of the Region (Area Electricity Board/Province) where the posts exist, as per existing policy.
' BPS 3-15: As far as possible, recruitment in Head Office, Power Stations and Dams is made on all Pakistan basis according to the Provincial Quota prescribed by the Federal Government.
6. Quota ' The quota reserved for various categories is given below:--- ' Employees Children 33.1/3% ' Disabled 1% ' Ex-Servicemen 10% ' Destitute/Orphan 5%
(x) Office Memorandum dated 19-11-2003 issued by PEPCO states--- PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SERVICES & GENERAL ADMINISTRATION ' DIRECTOR-GENERAL 332-Wapda House, Shahrah-e-Quaid-i-Azam Lahore (S&GA)
' No,DG(S&GA)/D(Rules)/07453/30/III/55906-27206 Dated 19-11-2003.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM ' Subject: QUALIFICATION PARAMETERS FOR RECRUITMENT OF STAFF ' Authority in its meeting held on 4-11-2003 has decided as under:---
1. The prescribed qualification to appointments in BPS 1 to BPS 4 and Sanitary Workers will be as under:
(a) BPS 3 and BPS 4 Matric
(b) BPS 1 and BPS 2 Middle except Sanitary Worker
(c) Sanitary Worker Literate (who can read newspaper and write a simple letter in any language)
(2) All Service Rules instructions of such categories will stand amended to the above extent.
(3) Merit list for appointments upto BPS-15 will be prepared as under:---
(a) Weightage to written Test 65 Marks
(b) Weightage in Interview 25 Marks
(c) One step higher qualification and above than the prescribed qualification in the relevant Service Rules (No weightage to above One step higher qualification) (emphasis Supplied) 10 Marks ' Recruitment policy will stand amended to the above extent.
(Sd.)
(Muhammad Akhtar Choudhary ' Director-General
(xi) However, quite abruptly, vide letter dated 15-10-2009, M.D, PEPCO issued the following letter:--- {{TABLE}} PEPCO PAKISTAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY (PVT.) LTD.
Ref. Managing Director/D/A 4200-4218 Dated October 15, 2009 Chief Executive Officer DISCOs, GENCOs & NTDC Subject: PRIORITY CONSIDERATION FOR CRUCIAL VACANCIES/CLEARANCE OF OPERATIONAL ISSUES.
Further to communications on subject, priority redressal of Technical/Operational and Revenue problems has become more pronounced now and thus cannot be left to procedural handling. Of course, these can be resolved to a great extent through improving on governance and supplementing the deficient HR base of the Companies on immediate basis, presently touching critical levels for skilled/semi-skilled categories like ALMs, ASSIts, LSs, Meter Inspectors, Meter Readers, Bill Distributors and other ministerial staff. Whereas Companies have advertised the vacant posts procedural requirements still mars the sincere efforts for early inductions. It has been brought to the notice of Ministry of Water and Power that PEPCO is following Recruitment Policy adopted from WAPDA, that is based on GOP Policy Parameters like open advertisement of the vacancies in the National Press and conducting the written tests ane interviews of the eligible candidates, a process not likely to complete within 4---5 months even if given straight going. The job has become difficult on account of overwhelming response of the, candidates for the advertised vacancies i.e, running in hundred thousands. Still another very serious concern is on the law and order situation as prevalent in the country, where holding of written test in congregation of thousands of candidates is not without serious life threats. There is a rising trend of the insurgency and terrorism where mass gatherings are the obvious and easy targets for the miscreants. It has been deemed appropriate to avoid providing any chance to terrorists by avoiding holding of gathering of candidates for written tests on certain placed and venues.
The position has been discussed and brought in the notice of Minister of Water and Power and in the view. Of the aforementioned circumstances, it has been advised to fill 50% of the vacancies in BPS 1-16 on immediate basis in accordance with the Recruitment Policy with unavoidable exception, where required. Additionally, the Minister of Water and Power has also been kind to allow recruitment against vacancies for Engineers and Officers of Common Cadre (BPS-17) including those pertaining to Revenues, Accounts and Audit etc. Accordingly, Entities are required to immediately start the selection process against 50% of the vacancies for BPS 1--16 from amongst the candidates who have applied against the advertised vacancies and also meet minimum prescribed criterion in the relevant Service Rules, by curtailing the selection process given in Recruitment Policy to the extent that all other steps will be strictly complied, but for the entrance test exception. The candidates will be called for walk in interviews and marks reserved for written test shall be added in the interview marks. The successful candidates shall then be issued offer of appointments. It is further clarified that CEOs may consider relaxation in age as already authorized to them and change the short listing criterion, where warranted, but otherwise not in conflict with the Service Rules to provide equal chances to all in view of persistent ban on recruitment. The above-mentioned measures are interim arrangements to cater for the special circumstances, called for by immediate staffing requirements, overwhelming response of candidates and security concerns for holding written tests in large congregation of candidates running in thousands, applicable to only 50% of the vacancies of BPS 1--16. The full process will stand restored automatically on completion of instant recruitment against allowed 50% vacancies as prevalent heretofore without any notice thereby, including the provision of written test.
The Recruitment Policy, however, will remain applicable as such for induction in Officers category where arrangements are possible for comparatively lesser number of candidates. The date, time and venue for examination against the Officers Cadre (both Technical and Non- Technical), if not already taken up, should be initiated for 50% of such vacancies on immediate basis in observance of prescribed criterion in Recruitment Policy and Service Rules.
All concerned may note to ensure induction of staff against the vacancies to the level allowed on Fast, Track basis so as to supplement the deficient HR Base for alleviating the operational problems of the Companies.
(Sd.)
Engr. Tahir Basharat Cheema, Managing Director {{TABLE}}
(xii) Thereafter 11 Selection Boards were constituted and "Walk-In" interviews were held in five Centres located at Joharabad, Jhang, Toba Tek Singh, Faisalabad and Sargodha and as a result the 1.347 vacant posts were filled. Details are as follows:--- {{TABLE}} Total No, of Candidates applied Total number of Candidates who appeared in the Walk-in Interview Total No, of Successful candidates Total No, of Candidates who joined the posts 89,579 47,120 1,619 1,347 {{TABLE}}
21. On the basis of the above facts, I take up the first question i.e,, the absence of a pre-fixed uniform and shared Objective Criterion for awarding marks to candidates who appeared for the Walk-In Interview, out of a total of 90 marks. Mr. Shahid Karim, Advocate appearing on behalf of PEPCO, submitted at the bar, that no Objective Criterion was framed by PEPCO or FESCO for assessing the candidates in the interview. CEO, FESCO in his statement tendered in writing before this Court dated 12-7-2010 (placed as Mark "A") admitted that the record of the proceedings of the Selection Boards is not available as it was not retained by the Selection Boards. When asked if an objective test or criterion was prepared and handed over to the Selection Boards so that a uniform interviewing process could be carried out, he submitted that no such criterion existed. No such objective criterion has been placed on the record or finds mention in the parawise comments filed by FESCO.
22. Statement of Muhammad Ashraf Chaudhry, HR and Admin. Director, FESCO recorded on 9-7- 2010 by the Local Commissioner states that: "....Assessment of the candidates in interview was not segregated in terms of different traits of character, personality, etc. But overall, assessment was evaluated by the Selection Board as no such written instructions exist...."
23. It is therefore an admitted position that no Objective Criterion for evaluation of candidates during the Walk-In Interviews was chalked out by PEPCO, FESCO or the Selection Boards. The Office Order through which 11 Selection Boards for various areas were constituted having a convenor and two members were given the following instructions. Office Order dated 28-10-2009 constituting Selection Board for the Sargodha Centre, which is similar to the others, is reproduced hereunder:--- {{TABLE}} Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited (WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY)
Tel # 041-9220370 OFFICE OF THE Fax # 041-9220445 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FESCO (WAPDA) FAISALABAD No,8235/DDA/E-II/ DATED 28-10-2009 OFFICE ORDER
1. A Board of following Officers will conduct walk in interviews of candidates for appointment on contract basis in FESCO, for the categories mentioned below on the dates mentioned against each at 0900 hrs in Sargodha Centre:---
(1) Mr. Abdul Razzaq, Manager (L&L) FESCO Convenor {{TABLE}}
(2) Mr. Aamil Hussain Siddiqi, Deputy Manager (Operation) Member 1st Division, Sargodha
(3) Mr. Javed Hussain, Member Deputy Manager .(Operation) 2nd Division, FESCO, Sargodha
(4) Mr. Rioz Hussain Baloch, Member Deputy Manager (Commercial)
(5) Malik Ashfaq Ahmed, Deputy Manager), Member (Technical) FESCO, Sargodha
(6) Mr. Saeed Ahmed Qureshi, Deputy Manager, Member
(MIS) FESCO, Sargodha
(7) Mr. Shahbaz Mehmood Member Assistant Manager (CTC) FESCO Sargodha
(8) Mr. Javed Anwar Sandhu Member Assistant Manager (Operation) Tariqabad Sub-Division FESCO Sargodha
(9) Mr. Maroof Ahmed Member Assistant Manager (Operation) City Sub-Division FESCO, Sargodha
(10) Mr. Imran Ali, Member Assistant Manager (Operation) Civil Lines Sub-Division FESCO Sargodha
(11) Mr. Muhammad Tariq Member Assistant Manager (Operation) Rural Sub Division FESCO Sargodha
(12) Mr. Ghulam Murtaza Member Assistant Manager (Operation) Kot Farid Sub Division FESCO
(13) Mr. Raza Ali Nawaz Member Assistant Manager (Construction) FESCO Sargodha
(14) Mr. AiIuhammad Rashed Member Assistant Manager (SS&T) FESCO Sargodha {{TABLE}} {{TABLE}}
15. Mr. Yasir Farooq Member Assistant Manager (P&I) SS&T FESCO Sargodha Category Date UDC 29-10-2009 LDC/TCC 30-10-2009 Chowkidar 30-10-2009 Naib Qasid 31-10-2009 Commercial Assistant 1-11-2009 ASSA 2-11-2009 Bill Distributor 3-11-2009 ALM . 4-11-2009 Meter Reader 5-11-2009 Lorry Driver r 6-11-2009 Assistant/Head Clerk 7-11-2009 {{TABLE}} ' Note:
(a) Arrangements will be made at Sargodha Centre by Manager (Operation) Sargodha Circle FESCO Sargodha.
(b) Convenor will further constitute Sub-Committees of the above Board.
(c) The officials already earmarked will be deputed for document checking and getting attendance of candidates. The Convenor in consultation with the Officers of the Board 'will specify their assignment.
(d) The Convenor of the Board himself will be present at the Venue well before the start of the interview and till completion. {{TABLE}}
(e) No unauthorized/irrelevant Officer/official will be allowed to enter at the place of Venue in any case except the Officers specifically detailed for the purpose.
(f) No candidate without original Call letter and National Identity Card will be allowed.
(g) No photocopy of the Board proceedings will be retained in any case by any member/official.
(h) Board Proceedings and attendance sheets will be provided by this Headquarters.
(i) The Board members will report to Convenor well before 30 minutes of the prescribed time on the date of interview.
2. This is issued with the approval of Chief Executive Officer, FESCO.
(Sd.)
Muhammad Gulzar Sheikh Manager (Admn.) {{TABLE}} The most fundamental component i.e, the basis of assessment and evaluation during the interview is starkly missing in the instructions at the fag end of the Office Order under the heading "Note"
(reproduced above).
24. Assuming for the sake of argument, that PEPCO lawfully modified the well-settled Recruitment Policy, 1992 framed by WAPDA by morphing written test into a Walk-In Interview with total marks of 90 (as per Recruitmeni Policy: 65 marks were allocated for written test and 25 marks for interview; the marks for written test were added into the total marks for the interview), what needs to be seen is whether the Selection Boards constituted for the purpose of holding Walk-In Interviews could have exercised lawful discretion in the absence of an objective criterion.
25.
It is settled law that administrative discretion has to be structured, reasoned, rational, logical and objective. One of the ways to arrive at such a structured exercise of discretion is to fashion it on a well-thoughtout, carefully deliberated objective standard. This helps test various faculties of the interviewee especially those, which the institution concerned requires. The standard can, therefore, cove - experience, alertness, initiative, general, aptitude, behaviour knowledge, dependability, etc. Which forms a uniform yardstick, gauge, scale or criterion for the exercise of discretion. Discretion without a uniform yardstick or a formula is a loose jumble of haphazard human subjectivity, which is inescapably susceptible to error and indubitably arbitrary, ex facie discriminatory, highly irrational and painfully illogical. The administrative compulsion and wisdom to structure discretion (in this case by providing a well-thoughtout objective criterion/test: or a score card) is to remove human subjectivity from exercise of discretion. In the present case, this was not done.
26. Good governance and institutional building requires that the requirements, demands and needs of the institution are tailored into the objective criterion/test so that the best suited human resource is selected for the post. The proposed criterion can sub-divide total marks into areas like; experience, skill aptitude, educational background, intellect, extracurricular, personality, ethics, etc. So the interviewers have a prefixed format to apply their mind on and disallow unchecked subjectivity from clogging them the minds.
27. The downside of not having a clear formula or criterion is supported by the following facts: Local Commission was directed to collect, at random, application forms/files of selected and rejected candidates. This was duly done. A bare perusal of the files placed on the record and attached to the Report of the Local Commission reveal as follows: {{TABLE}} Post Name of Academic Name of an Academic applied for the Rejected qualifications appointed Qualification candidate candidate Meter Atteeq-ur- Matric 51% Ghulam F.A.50.72% Reader Rehman F.A. 61% Mustafa Matric 40% CNIC B.A. 65% 33104- 38301- 8953930-7 198522-3 {{TABLE}} ' The appointed candidates have less qualification than the rejected ones. The above comparative chart is self-explanatory.
28. On an institutional level, structuring the discretion is to protect the institution and the public from the vice of arbitrariness. It is to filter whims, vagaries, caprice, surmises and volatility attached to human behaviour, translated into human dissection. These vices are a breeding ground for corruption, nepotism and favourtism. These vices are like termites and if permitted to exist, weaken the foundations of democratic public institutions. Reference at this stage is made to the case of Aman Ullah Khan and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 1990 SC 1092 at page 1147), relevant part of Para 62 reads as under:--- "Wherever wide-worded powers conferring discretion exist, there remains always 'he need to structure the discretion and it has been pointed out in the Administrative Law Text by Kenneth Culp Davis that the structuring of discretion only means regularizing it, organizing it, producing order in it so that decision will achieve the high quality of justice. The seven instruments that are most useful in the structuring of discretionary power are open plans, open policy statements, open rules, open findings, open reasons, open precedents and fair informal procedure. Somehow, in our context, the wide worded conferment of discretionary powers or reservation of discretion, without framing rules to regulate its exercise, has been taken to be an enhancement of the power and it gives that impression in the first instance but where the authorities tail to rationalize it and regulate it by Rules, or Policy statements or precedents, the Courts have to intervene more often than is necessary, apart from the exercise of such power appearing arbitrary and capricious at times".
(Emphasis supplied)
29. The above principles have been consistently reiterated in the cases of Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Limited, Rawalpindi PLD 1991 SC 14), Director Food, N.-W.F.P. And another v. Messrs Madina Flour and General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. And 18 others PLD 2001 SC 1, Chief Secretary Punjab and others v. Abdul Raoof Dasti 2006 SCM R 1876, Abdul Wahab and another v. Secretary, Government of Balochistan and another 2009 SCM R 1354 and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others AIR 1991 SC 101.
30. Interview as the sole or major component of any recruitment or appointment process is open to error, arbitrariness, favour and corruption. It is for this reason that Recruitment Policy framed by WAPDA on the guidelines of the Federal Government allocated 25% marks out 100 for interview, while 65 marks were allocated for written test and 10 marks for higher qualifications. The midstream sudden and shift to Walk-In Interview is therefore irrational and opposed to public policy. In case of large number of candidates interviews become even less effective. Interviewing for two to three minutes per candidate cannot help to judge the candidate and is no more than an eye wash, not to mention how such rushed and cursory interview can be abused to achieve oblique ends. In the present case, according to the record, 44,656 candidates were interviewed in 11 days by 11 Selection Boards. This means that on an average 377 candidates were interviewed per day by each Selection Board, which is humanly impossible and turns the interview and recruitment process into a cruel joke. I rely with advantages image on the under-mentioned cases for demerits of an appointment process solely based on interview.
31. In B. Ramakichenin alias Balagandhi v. Union of India and others 2008(1) SCC 362 it was held:--- "It is well-settled that the method of short-listing can be validly adapted by the Selection Body....
Even if there is no rule providing for short-listing nor any mention of it in the advertisement calling for applications for the post, the Selection Body can resort to a short-listing procedure if there are a large number of eligible candidates who apply and it is not possible for the authority to interview all of them. For example, if for on or two posts Mere are more than 1000 applications received from eligible candidates, it may not be possible to interview all of them. In this situation, the procedure of short- listing can be resorted to by the Selection Body, even though there is no mention of short- listing in the rules or in the advertisement. As observed by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.
The International Airport Authority of India and others AIR 1979 SC 1628:"It is a well-settled rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. This rule was enunciated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in "William Vincent Vitarelli v. Fred A. Seaton" 359 US 535; 3 L Ed 2nd 1012 (1959) where the learned Judge said: "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged. Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even though generous beyond the requirements that binds such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed. This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He that takes the procedural sword shall perish with the sword".
(Emphasis supplied)
32. In Madhya Paradesh Public Service Commission v. Navnit Kumar Potdar and another AIR 1995 SC 77 it was held:--- "But where the selection is to be made only on basis of interview, the Commission or the Selection Board can adopt any rational procedure to fix the number of candidates who should be called for interview. It has been impressed by the courts from time to time that where selections are to be made only on the basis of interview, then such interviews/viva voce tests must be carried out in a thorough and scientific manner in order to arrive at a fair and satisfactory evaluation of the personality of the candidate... If large number of applicants are called for interview in respect of four posts, the interview is then bound to be casual and superficial because of the time constraint.
The members of the Commission shall not be in a position to assess properly the candidates who appear before them for interview". (Emphasis supplied)
33. In Ajay Hasia and others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others AIR 1981 SC 487 wherein it was held that interview of each of the candidates lasting only two or three minutes asking formal questions relating to the candidates parentage and residence and without any relevance to the subject for which marks were allocated.... "The oral interview test is undoubtedly not a very satisfactory test for assessing and evaluating the capacity and calibre of candidates". Having regard to the drawbacks and deficiencies in the oral interview test and the conditions prevailing in the country, particularly when there is deterioration in moral values and corruption and nepotism are very much on the increase, allocation of a high percentage of marks for the oral interview as compared to the marks allocated for the written test, is not free from the vice of arbitrariness.
34. In Ashok Kumar Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others AIR 1987 SC 454 at page 473:-- - "... Candidate's initiative, alertness, resourcefulness, dependableness, cooperativeness, capacity for clear and logical presentation, effectiveness in discussion, effectiveness in meeting and dealing with others, adaptability, judgment, ability to make decision, ability to lead, intellectual and moral integrity. Some of these qualities can he evaluated, perhaps with some degree of error, by a viva voce test, much depending on the constitution of the interview Board.... Glenn Stahl has pointed out in his book on Public Personal Administration that the viva voce test does suffer from certain disadvantages such as the difficulty of developing a valid and reliable oral test, the difficulty of securing a reviewable record of an oral test and public suspicion of the oral test as a channel for the exertion of political influence and, as pointed out by this Court in Ajay Hasia's case AIR 1981 SC 487 (supra), also of other corrupt, nepotistic or extraneous considerations "
35. Constitutionally, unlimited and unchecked exercise of discretion is inherently discriminatory. It has no internal check to ensure uniformity and objective application of mind across the board. It, therefore, extends unequal treatment to equals. Absence of an objective criterion in exercise of discretion especially in the present case where thousands of candidates had applied is therefore discriminatory and hence violative of Article 25 of the Constitution.
36. Petitioners, hailing from different districts of Punjab, with modest means and humble background, desperately seeking appointment to public service (86,000 candidates applying for 1347 posts highlights the noticeable elasticity of demand). To subject their career and future prospects of employment and perhaps their only hope of livelihood to an unstructured, unchecked, unguided and unfettered exercise of discretion, puts the fragile career of the petitioner hostage to corruption, political opportunism and nepotism resulting in constitutional breach of Articles 4 and 18 of the Constitution.
37. Article 4 of the Constitution provides for due process and mandates that everyone is to be treated in accordance with law. Administrative discretion which is structurally unfettered and unchecked cannot be said to have been exercised in accordance with law and therefore fails to pass the test of due process under Article 4 of the Constitution.
38. The Walk-In Interviews in this case are devoid of an objective criterion and therefore violative of the due process and the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The Walk-In Interviews are therefore declared to be ab intio unconstitutional and unlawful creating no right whatsoever in the successful candidates.
39. Coming to the Letter issued by MD, PEPCO and its ex post facto ratification. It is important to note that the public advertisement for the vacancy of the posts in question were allowed by PEPCO and it was directed that recruitment be made as per Recruitment Policy framed by WAPDA vide Letters dated 12-2-2009 and 26-3-2009 (above). Still, M.D., PEPCO without the approval of its Board of Directors, under the political diktat of the Minister, Water and Power issued Letter dated 15-10- 2009. The relevant extracts of the letter are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:--- {{TABLE}} It has been brought to the notice of Ministry of Water and Power that PEPCO is following Recruitment Policy adopted from WAPDA, that is based on GOP Policy Parameters like open advertisement of the vacancies in the National Press and conducting the written tests and interviews of the eligible candidates, a process not likely to complete within 4 -5 months even if given straight going. The job has become difficult on account of overwhelming response of the candidates for the advertised vacancies i.e, running in hundred thousands. Still another very serious concern is on the law and order situation as prevalent in the country, where holding of written test in congregation of thousands of candidates is not without serious life threats. There is arising trend of the insurgency and terrorism where mass gatherings are the obvious and easy targets for the miscreants. It has been deemed appropriate to avoid providing any chance to terrorists by avoiding holding of gathering of candidates for written tests on certain placed and venues.
The position has been discussed and brought in the notice of Minister of Water and Power and in the view of the aforementioned circumstances, it has been advised to fill 50% of the vacancies in BPS 1-16 on immediate basis in accordance with the Recruitment Policy with unavaoidable exception, where required. Additionally, the Minister of Water and Power has also been kind to allow recruitment against vacancies for Engineers and Officers of Common Cadre (BPS-17) including those pertaining to Revenues, Accounts and Audit etc. Accordingly, Entities are required to immediately start the selection process against 50% of the vacancies for BPS 1-16 from amongst the candidates who have applied against the advertised vacancies and also meet minimum prescribed criterion in the relevant Service Rules, by curtailing the selection process given in Recruitment Policy to the extent that all other steps will be strictly complied, but for the entrance test exception. The candidates will be called for walk in interviews and marks reserved for written test shall be added in the interview marks.
The successful candidates shall then be issued offer of appointments. It is further clarified that CEOs may consider relaxation in age as already authorized to them and change the short listing criterion, where warranted, but otherwise not in conflict with the Service Rules to provide equal chances to all in view of persistent ban on recruitment. {{TABLE}}
40. The said letter dispensing with the written test and adding the marks for the same into the total score for the Walk-In Interview has poorly masked the political caprice visible between the lines. It has been reasoned, with little logic, that if written tests are held the process will not be concluded within 4 to 5 months due to large number of applications. Secondly, the rise of insurgency and terrorism require that mass gathering ought to be avoided, hence the Walk-In Interviews. It may be noted, that in such an eventuality, where candidates hugely, outnumber the limited number of vacant posts, recourse to short-listing is made. By setting a standard based on academic qualifications, candidates can be short-listed and the small number of shortlisted candidates be subjected to the recruitment process comprising a written test and an interview.
41. Clause 1(g) of the Guideline for Recruitment of Staff BPS 1-15 states: "No weightage will be given to the interview unless essential for the post." It is now settled on good authority, as discussed earlier in the judgment, that interview must always be a small component of the recruitment process and primacy be given to the written tests as it involves less subjectivity and is a better test of abilities. It is, therefore, surprising that M.D. PEPCO on the behest of the Minister, Water and Power, without placing it before its own Board of Directors, hurriedly issued letter dated 15-10-2009 deleting the requirement of a written test and hinging the recruitment process on to the weakest modes of assessm ent i.e,, interview.
42. The urgency and the compelling reasons that coaxed MD PEPCO to modify an established Recruitment Policy and that too after the process of recruitment had begun is not forthcoming from Letter dated 15-10-2009. The said arrangement is also temporary and for the remaining 50% seats the original recruitment policy will be adopted. .
43. Further, the ex post facto ratification by the Board of Directors fails to give reasons of urgency, failing to explicate why ratification was allowed. The Board of Directors of PEPCO also failed to inquire why the established Recruitment Policy had to be modified and whether short listing was an option that was not placed on the table. The decision of Board of Directors dated 25-4-2010 blandly states:--- ' Item 15.
' RATIFICATION OF PRIORITY CONSIDERATION FOR CRITICAL VACANCIES/CLEARANCE OF OPERATIONAL ISSUES ' Through an Item Note on the subject and in the ensuing discussion piloted by the General Manager (HR),PEPCO, the Board meeting, ex post facto Ratification No, MD/GM(HR) /HRD/A- 551(09)4200-4218 dated 15-10-2009. Concerning the need for supplementing the deficient HR base on a fast track basis alleviating the operational problems of the Companies.
' The Board of Directors ratified the aforesaid instructions, as requested.
44. The, Board item note (above) fails to mention why the decision had to be taken by M.D., PEPCO without the approval of the Board and the Board. Also miserably failed to review the reasons why such a decision was taken and failed to deliberate whether the decision was correct. It is important to note that decision dated 15-10-2009 is ratified by the Board of Directors on 25-4-2010, while the decision of the MD, PEPCO stood implemented and impugned appointments were made on 6-1- 2010.
45. Even though ex post facto ratification is permissible under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for companies, however, in the case of autonomous bodies/sector, the use of ex post facto ratification needs a revisit. A public sector company is not only to look after the interest of its shareholders alone but has a wider responsibility as it acts as a trustee for the people of Pakistan. Higher standard of governance, stricter fiduciary duty and an institutional collegiality in decision making process is an expected operational benchmark of a public sector company. The trusteeship of the members of the Board of Directors of PEPCO create a sacred obligation to ensure that PEPCO is run and managed through the Board, which is an independent and an autonomous body constituted to safeguard the interest of the public and of PEPCO and at all times to firewall against political or bureaucratic opportunism. A Minister under the Rules of Business is to provide the macro policy and fashion the vision of the Department according to the political agenda of the Government in power. It is not the role or the business of the Minister, (in this case Minister for Water and Power) to interfere with the operational working of autonomous body like PEPCO. In this case the Minister could have stressed the urgency to employ manpower in various power companies but could not have gone further to suggest and direct the temporary modification of the Recruitment Policy unless PEPCO after due deliberation at the Board level and after giving reasons felt that such a modification is required in the larger interest of PEPCO and in pubic interest. Government and its autonomous institutions are spread out in layers, every tier having its own independent role and scope of operations and there is no room for dictation or pressure. Unless the structure of governance laid out in the Rules of Business read with the constitutional principles, is protected, the system of public administration will come crashing down, replacing public interest with personal avarice and greed. This cannot be permitted.
46. 1, therefore, hold that public sector companies (e.g. PEPCO, FESCO) shall take collective decision in their Board Meetings, giving reasons as required under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a Board Resolution through circulation; if there is urgency. Only in grave emergency, which has no room for delay, the CEO may act singly in the welfare of the company and in public interest, supported by written reasons for its urgency and the same must be ratified by the Board of Directors within the shortest possible time. Board of Directors must also give reasons for allowing the CEO to take such a decision and must give reasons for its ratification.
47. The Letter issued by Managing Director PEPCO changing the Recruitment Policy at the behest of Minister besides offending fundamental right (as discussed above) reflects of poor and reckless governance.
48. As per the website of WAPDA i.e,, www.WAPDA.Gov.Pk.
"Since October, 2007, WAPDA has been bifurcated into two distinct entities i.e,. WAPDA and Pakistan Electric Power Company (PEPCO). WAPDA is responsible for water and hydropower development whereas PEPCO is vested with the responsibility of thermal power generation, transmission, distribution and billing. WAPDA is now fully responsible for the development of Hydel Power and Water Sector Projects. PEPCO has been fully empowered and is responsible for the management of all the affairs of corporatized nine Distribution Companies (DISCOs), four Generation Companies (GENCOs) and a National Transmission Dispatch Company (NTDC). These companies are working under independent Board of Directors (Chairman and some Directors are from Private Sectors).
The Companies are administratively autonomous and leading to financial autonomy by restructuring their balance sheets by bringing their equity position to at least 20 per cent, required to meet the prudential regulations and to facilitate financing from commercial sector (approved by ECC)."
49. FESCO is an independent public company with its autonomous Board of Directors. Decision of M.D. PEPCO or Board of Directors of PEPCO are required to be placed before the- Board of Directors of FESCO in orders to take a decision regarding the recruitment process employed at FESCO. No such Board meeting took place. The autonomy of FESCO and the independence of the Board of Directors of FESCO is merely fictional if directions issued by individuals namely: M.D. PEPCO (without seeking the approval of the Board of PEPCO) are carried through by the management of FESCO without having received the blessing of its Board of Directors.
50. Public Institutions can only contribute to national interest and welfare of the people if they are run as an institution and in the public interest without any fear or favour. If the Board Members are bypassed and are simply used to ratify orders passed single handedly behind closed doors and without any plausible reason, the future of public institutions is bleak. In order to ensure independence, autonomy, national interest and interest of the institution, the members of the governing bodies will have to vigilantly and actively play their roles. To be on the Board of a public sector company is to perform a public duty in the public interest of the people of Pakistan. This role has to be performed with full responsibility, vigilance, courage, wisdom and for no other reason.
Sadly, this is not the case here.
51. The arguments raised by the counsel for the appointees have no force. Reliance placed on Muhammad Zahid and others v. D.E.O. Mandan and others 2006 SCM R 285 is misconceived. In the present case prospective candidates have brought the process of recruitment under challenge and it is not a case where the departmental authority has cancelled appointment due to some irregularity in the process with no third party interest. The facts of the present case are very different. The judgment cited has no application to the present case.
52. Before parting with the judgment I wish to re-emphasize that public institutions can prosper and progress and materially serve the people of Pakistan only if the public functionaries incharge of running P these institutions fearlessly guard their powers and remain. Undeterred by extraneous pressure and influence. The words of the founder of our nation Muhammad Ali Jinnah are a timely reminder:- "The first thing that I want to tell you is this, that you should not be influenced by any political pressure, by any political party or individual politician. If you want to raise the prestige and greatness of Pakistan, you must not fall a victim to any pressure, but do your duty as servants to the people and the State, fearlessly and honestly. Service is the backbone of the State.
Governments are formed, Governments are defeated, Prime Ministers come and go. Ministers come and go, but you stay on, and, therefore, there is a very great responsibility placed on your shoulders. You should have no hand in supporting this political party or that political party, this political leader or that political leader---this is not your business ...While impressing this upon you on your side, I wish also to take the opportunity of impressing upon our leaders and politicians in the same way that if they ever try to interfere with you and bring political pressure to bear upon you, which leads to nothing but corruption, bribery and nepotism--which is' a horrible disease and for which not only your Province but others too; are suffering-4f they try and interfere with you in this way, I say, they are doing nothing but disservice to Pakistan'.
53. For the above reasons, the impugned recruitment and appointment of candidates to the posts of ALM, Meter Readers, Commercial Assistants and Naib Qasids by FESCO is declared to be unconstitutional, illegal, without lawful authority and therefore set aside. All the said posts shall be deemed to be vacant and filled again in terms of this judgment and the Recruitment Policy of WAPDA unless the same is lawfully amended or modified by PEPCO or FESCO.
54. From the above facts and the record placed before this court it is clear that the PEPCO and FESCO have played fraud with the legitimate expectations of hundreds of people who innocently applied desiring a decent lawful employment. However, instead of carrying out transparent recruitment process and giving meaningful employment to the youth of this country, these institutions failed to perform their public duty and have abused the public trust reposed in them by the people of Pakistan. This calls for strict accountability of the public functionaries involved in the process including the Board Members of PEPCO and FESCO who seem to have taken no note of this large-scale breach of trust. I, therefore, direct Chairman WAPDA to inquire into these unlawful appointments and to identify the real beneficiaries of this unlawful recruitment process. Chairman WAPDA shall also hear and incorporate the views of the candidates who were rejected as well as the ones whose appointment has been set aside through this judgment. This report shall be placed before this Court within five months from today.
55. Office is directed to place the report before this Court on the judicial side as a Report Case.
56. For the above reasons, these petitions are allowed with costs of Rs,10,000 per petitioner, which shall be paid equally by the PEPCO and FESCO within a month from today. {{TABLE}} SCHEDULE - A Sr. No, Writ Petition No, Title
1. W.P. No,14921 of 2010 Syed Muhammad Waris Shah v. WAPDA and others [Informal talk to Civil Officers at Government House, Peshawar 14-4-1948 from Jinnah - Speeches and Statements 1947-1948-Oxford] {{TABLE}} _ W.P. No,6212 of 2010 Muhammad Mushtaq v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6214 of 2010 Abdul Waked Khan v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6215 of 2010. Sikandar Hayat v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6216 of 2010 . Muhammad Nazir v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6217 of 2010 Shujat All Shah v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,2693 of 2010 Amanyllah v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,4985 of 2010 Hafiz Junaid Latif v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,4987 of 2010 Aamir Hayat Khan v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,4989 of 2010 Ghulam Abbas v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,4990 A 2010 Muhammad Rehan Faisal v. WAPDA and others Adnan Raza v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,4991 of 7.0115 W.P. No,4992 of 21)10 Natiq Ali v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,4993 of 2010 Nazir Mukhtar v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,4994 of 2010 Muhammad Saqib v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,4995 of 2010 Muhammad Kamran Shehzad v. WAPDA and oth,:f., W.P. No,4996 of 2010 Sajid Khan v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,4997 of 2010 Muhammad Amjad v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6794 of 2010 Muhammad Afzal v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6795 of 2010 Basit Saeed v. WAPDA and others W.P. NO.6796 of 2010 Muhammad Asif Khan v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6798 of 2010 Saqib Javid and others v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6799 of 2010 Zulqarnain v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6800 of 2010 Muhammad Mumtaz "v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,6801 of 2010 . Shahid Amin v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,8455 of 2010 Muhammad Saleem v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,8456 of 2010 Zafar. Iqbal v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,8457 of 2010 Zafar Hayat -v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,8459 of 2010 Ghulam Jaffar v. WAPDA and others JO W.P. No,8460 of 2010 Mujahid Hussain. v.
WAPDA and others {{TABLE}} W.P. No,8461 of 2010 Muhammad Iniran v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,8463 of 2010 Muhammad Waris v. WAPDA and others V.P. No,8559 o: 2010 Hafiz Muhammad Azam v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,5831 of 2010 Shahid Waheed v. Government of Pakistan and others W.P. No,6717 of 2010 Rehan All v. Government of Pakistan and others W.P. No,11901 of 2010 Muhammad Farooy v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11902 of 2010 Hadayat Ullah Khan v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11903 of 2010 Muhammad Faroog v. WAPDA and others W.P No,11905 of 2010 Muhammad Hayat Khan v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11907 of 2010 Sikandar Hayat v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11908 of 2010 Sikandar Hayat v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11910 of 2010 Zulfiyar v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11911 of 2010 Sana Ullah v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11912 of 2010 Muhammad Saleem v. WAPDA and others W.P. No 11913 of 2010 Azam Hussain v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11916 Of 2010 Hadayat Ullah Khan v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11917 of 2010 Muhammad Nazir v. v. WAPDA and others W.P. No,11942 of 2010 Kamran v. WAPDA and others W.P. i4o.14922 of 2010 Rizwan Qamar v. WAPDA and others {{TABLE}}