SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, J. Petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing instant writ petition with the following prayer:- 1n view of the submission made above, it is respectfully prayed that the notification dated 8th June, 2012 may kindly be declared to be illegal, unlawful and of no legal effect being contrary to the provision of Ordinance of 2002, and respondents No 1 to 4 may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner for appointment as members of the Board and till such time that the petitioners are not considered for appointment, the meeting of the Board be ordered not be held for any purpose whatsoever."
2. Since both sides have been heard at great length , therefore, no need to formally admit the Writ Petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is an admitted fact that petitioners are the senior most officers hi the Postal Service and even petitioner's scale is higher than respondent Nos. 5 to 7, who have been nominated members of the Board as a result of arbitrary and colourable exercise of the authority. Learned counsel further submitted that nomination of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 is patently illegal and offensive to settled norms of service.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned order by submitting that word "senior" placed in the Rules, does not mean to be "senior most" and it is the discretion of the authority to pick amongst the officers who are senior but not the senior most.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record annexed with the respective pleadings.
In order to narrow down the controversy, admitted facts are being provided:---
5. At the time of issuance of impugned notification dated 08.06.2012 petitioners were the senior most additional Directors General/Postmasters General in BPS-21 of the Postal Group.
6. Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were at serial No. 4, 9 & 13 of the seniority list of BPS-20 Officers of postal service.
7. Dates of joining Government Service & Entry in present scale:--- Petitioners Date of entry into Govt. ServiceEntry present scale Mashal Khan 15-11-1980 03-03-2011 (BPS- 21)
Fazli Sattar Khan 15-12-1980 08-05-2009 Muhammad Jan 21-09-1981 08-01-2010 Respondents Mrs. Bubina Tayyab 03-10-1982 10-03-2008 (BPS- 20)
Dr. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan02-10-1982 08-05-2009 Dr. Naseer Ahmed Khan22-10-1985 24-11-2011 For convenience, Section 3 of the Pakistan Postal Services Management Board Ordinance, 2002 is being reproduced herein below:---
3. Establishment of the Pakistan Postal Service Management Board:-
(1) For the management of the Pakistan Post Office Department, there is hereby established a board to be known as the Pakistan Postal Service Management Board.
(2) The Board shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal, with power, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, to acquire, hold and dispose of its property, both moveable and immovable, and shall by its name sue and be sued.
(3) The Board shall consist of the following members, namely:---
(a) Director General, Pakistan Post Office, Chairman
(b) An officer of the rank of Joint Secretary from the Ministry of Finance, Member
(c) An officer of the rank of Joint Secretary from the Communication Division, Member
(d) Three senior technical officers from the Pakistan Post Office Department. Member (underlining is mine)
(e) Three suitable persons from private Sector Member Since definition of word senior mentioned in Section 3(3) (d) of the Pakistan Postal Services Management Board Ordinance, 2002 has not been provided by the statute itself, therefore, ordinary dictionary meanings of the same have to be applied.
According to Concise Oxford Dictionary 11th Edition, it means, high or 'higher in status. As per Webster's Dictionary it means higher ranking, superior. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, New Edition provides the meaning of word "senior" as having a higher position, level, or rank. Garner Black's Law Dictionary 8th edition provides the meanings of word "senior" higher in rank or service.
5. In my estimation, there is no justification to bring in comparison the present petitioners with the respondent Nos. 5 to 7. At the time of issuance of impugned notification, petitioners were placed in higher ranks, therefore, to treat the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 as senior technical officers and their nomination as members of the Board is totally uncalled for, offensive to the provisions of applicable law and besides the principles of fair play. Policy of pick and choose cannot be accorded approval more particularly when blessed one were not, even equally placed with the ignored. Even, ordinary meanings of word senior, substantiate the stance of the Petitioners. It is well-settled law that executive authority has to be exercised, justly, fairly and impartially instead, of in an arbitrary manner and in fanciful way.