' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C J.---This judgment also deals with and decides I.C.A. No,317/2010, I.C.A. No, 642/2010, I.C.A. No,720/2010, I.C.A. No,718/2010, I.C.A. No, 566/2010, I.C.A. No,565/2010, I.C.A.
No,323/2010 and I.C.A. No,324/2010 as common questions of law and fact arising from the same impugned judgment are involved in these Intra Court Appeals.
2. The afore-noted Intra Court Appeals are filed against the judgment dated 5-5-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, striking down the appointments of 437 employees made by the appellant "GEPCO" against twelve (12) categories of posts, advertised in the Daily Jang of 2-11-2008.
The annulment of the said appointments was ordered on the ground that these appointments made solely on the basis of "walk-in-interview" suffered from non-transparency and were made in relaxation of the prescribed recruitment process and through practices that amounted to grant of undue advantage to the successful candidates over others. In addition, costs of Rs,25,000 were imposed on GEPCO and two of its officers namely its CEO and Director (HR and Admin).
3. On 5-8-2010 this Court issued notice in the instant appeal to the other side and suspended the impugned judgment to the extent of imposition of costs on the GEPCO and its two officers.
Thereafter, on 16-8-2010 certain categories of appointees who were necessary for the smooth functioning of GEPCO were allowed to continue till the decision of the main appeal. The number of such appointees is 335 persons. As the findings given in the impugned judgment were not suspended, it was directed that GEPCO shall, from within the pool of candidates who had participated in the impugned recruitment process, carry out a fresh selection process based on written test and interview strictly in accordance with rules and pursuant to short listing criteria that was specified by the Court in its order dated 18-10-2010 passed in a connected I.C.A. No,602/2010 titled "PEPCO and others v. Imran Husain and others"
4. From time to time compliance reports about the recruitment process were filed by GEPCO. The recruitment on merit from the existing pool of the applicants was thereafter completed for the 12- categories of posts. Out of 437 appointees, 294 employees (67%) failed on merit to defend their appointments. Their services were accordingly terminated by the GEPCO after obtaining permission of the Court. It is also pointed out that 5 posts of stenographers were wrongly included in the selection process which should have been confined to 432 posts. Be that as it may, no applicant fulfilled the qualification criteria for the posts of stenographers and therefore no appointment was recommended in the fresh recruitment process.
5. In the recruitment process 432 persons have been appointed in 12 categories of posts. Only 138 persons, who were selected in the impugned selection process, have survived the scrutiny on the touchstone of merit, transparency and fairness. This means that 294 appointees under the impugned selection process had been accommodated on extraneous considerations. Their entry was achieved through a walk-in-interview process that finds no warrant or sanction in the existing rules and regulations. The impugned appointments to public posts made in relaxation of rules failed the test of merit to the extent of 67% of the appointees. The foregoing result is a gross violation of the rule of competition, transparency and fairness laid down for appointments to public office by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal and others v. The Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore and others (1997 SCMR 1043). Equally, selection based on interviews alone has been held to be most unreliable and arbitrary because the assessment is entirely subjective. Reliance is placed on Waheed Ahmed and another v. Executive District Officer (Revenue) Faisalabad and others (2012 PLC (C.S.) 733)
6. It is important to establish the cause that derailed the recruitment process at the appellant's establishment. The culprit in the entire process is one letter dated 15-10-2009 written by the M.D., PEPCO to the Chief Executive Officers of DISCOs, GENCOs and NTDC. This letter bears the subject: "Priority consideration for critical vacancies/clearance of operational issues". The relevant contents of the said letter are reproduced below:-- "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, Entitles 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 criteria 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-interview 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 relaxations in age as already authorized to them and change the short listing criteria where warranted, but otherwise not in conflict with the Service Rules to provide equal chances to all in view of persistent ban on recruitment." (Underlining added).
' By the said letter the M.D., PEPCO directed, inter alia, the appellant DISCO, on the strength of discussions with the highest functionary in the Ministry of Water and Power, to relax the condition of its recruitment process by excluding the stage of entrance test and instead to introduce a walk-in- interview to select the successful candidates. By the said letter short listing was also eliminated.
7 The M.D., PEPCO was summoned by the Court. He appeared on 29-11-2011 and answered the Court's queries to explain the grounds of his directive dated 15-10-2009. He could not cite any legal authority or power for issuing the direction to relax the condition of written test laid down in the prescribed recruitment procedure. He only relied on the verbal instructions that he had received from higher quarters. It is noted that the selection process introduced by M.D., PEPCO allegedly on the direction of his higher authorities led to a fanciful and prejudiced recruitment process that appointed 437 persons to public posts in the appellant's establishment without following merit.
8. This Court has noted with appreciation the effort made by the operational staff of GEPCO, who worked diligently pursuant to Court's direction to apply transparent criteria of selection fairly and objectively to find successful candidates on merit. Consequently, the findings given by the learned Single judge on the defects of the impugned selection are correct both because the exemption from written test prescribed by the rules is illegal and also since the result of a fair reassessment of the existing candidate pool proves the result of the impugned selection process to be unjust.
9. The said illegality and injustice occurred' on account of the directive dated 15-10-2009 issued by the M.D., PEPCO. In the above scenario the personal liability of the said M.D., PEPCO and others responsible for instructing the unlawful deviation in the recruitment process exists in the eyes of law. However, the liabilities of GEPCO officers cannot be assumed because they were not party to the wrongful directive dated 15-10-2009 and were working in an administrative process that lacked safeguards and was therefore open to abuse. However, this is a matter which requires further probe in two respects: firstly, personal responsibility for disregarding and disobeying applicable recruitment rules and secondly, the authority of PEPCO to interfere in the affairs of DISCOs. Office shall send a copy of this judgment to the National Accountability Bureau for examining the causes and reasons for the issuance of the letter dated 15-10-2009 by the M.D., PEPCO on account of which the entire recruitment process at GEPCO was derailed. Disposed of.