SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J.- The instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "It is humbly prayed that by accepting this Writ Petition, the order dated 04.05.2021 passed by respondent No.1 may kindly be set aside being illegal, void and appointment/recommendation for promotion of respondent No.3 to 7 may kindly be set aside and the respondent No.1 may graciously be directed to reconstitute any independent/impartial interview penal according to the regulation No.52 of PPSC Regulations 2016 by cancelling the earlier procedure done by interview penal consisting of partial interview penal members, in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts relevant for decision of the instant petition are that the petitioner having applied for the post of Assistant Professor, Orthopedic Surgery, was called for interview by a panel consisting of four (4) members, and after the interview he was hopeful to be selected, but he was astonished to know that in the final list his name was at serial No.7 only for the reason that out of four members of interview panel, two persons namely Professor Dr. Kamran Salick and Professor Dr. Khalil Ahmad Gill, who were retired Orthopedic Surgeons, are closely related to the candidates selected promoted by PPSC interview panel. According to the petitioner, candidate at serial No.1 remained a trainee as well as junior to Professor Dr. Kamran Salick in the same ward, whereas his father namely Dr. Ghulam Haider Qaisrani (Retired Professor) also remained posted with him for a long period.
Similarly, father of the candidate at serial No.2 namely Dr. Hamid Qayyum also being a retired professor Orthopedic Surgeon has close relations with both the said members of interview panel.
Likewise, the candidate at serial No.5 namely Dr. Kashif Siddique also remained a trainee as well junior to Professor Dr. Kamran Salick in the same ward for a long period, whereas the 3rd candidate Dr. Sherafghan has been selected on the basis of his close relationship with the D.G. FIA. In view of such relations members of the interview panel having sympathy with the said candidates extended them favour while ignoring the petitioner, despite the fact that he was senior to them and has been working as Assistant Professor (Ad hoc) for the last about four (4) years.
3. The petitioner submitted that except for candidate falling at serial No.4 namely Dr. Basharat Manzoor all others are much junior to him, but all of them have been extended favour only on the basis of personal relations, and the petitioner has been ignored as mentioned above. The petitioner challenged the vires of formation of interview panel by filing Writ Petition No.271/2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2021 with the direction to respondent No.1 to treat it as representation on behalf of the petitioner and decide whether interview panel was constituted in terms of Regulation No.52 of the PPSC Regulations, 2016 strictly in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and all concerned through a speaking order, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. However, after hearing the petitioner and all concerned instead of rejecting or accepting his representation, it was disposed of with mala fide intention on 08.04.2021, without deciding the basic point regarding constitution of interview panel.
4. In the above background the petitioner has filed the instant petition assailing the order dated 08.04.2021 on the ground that it has been passed by respondent No.1 without taking into consideration the basic issue regarding constitution and as such the same is illegal, void and liable to be set aside.
5. In response to notice respondent No.1 filed report and parawise comments stating that in compliance with the order dated 10.03.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.271/2021 the petitioner was heard and merit list was examined in the light of Regulation No.54 of PPSC Regulations 2016, with a view to redress his grievance. However, it was found that even after disregard/exclusion of marks given by the advisor namely Dr. Kamran Salick to the two recommended candidates namely, Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique are excluded, there would be no effect on the merit list.
6. Respondents No.3 to 7 also filed a reply to the petition stating that they had no information regarding the members of interview panel before the interview and that except for being trainees they have no relations with any member of the panel. They submitted that no one can be held to be disentitled to compete the process of selection by the PPSC merely on the basis of being a trainee of a member of the interview panel, as every professor provides training to so many persons and relation between them can be said to be that of teacher and student and not of close associate. According to them, process of selection was purely based on merit, but the petitioner having failed to qualify the criteria of Punjab Public Service Commission has challenged the selection with ill will motive. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that except for one selected candidate, he was senior to all others, but has been ignored due to their relation with the members of interview panel, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that an ad hoc appointment does not confer any right. Reliance is placed on the cases of Mrs. Naila Khalid vs. Pakistan through Secretary Defence and others (PLD 2003 SC 420) and Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. vs. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998).
7. Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.04.2021, on the ground that his representation has been disposed of without deciding the main issue as to whether constitution of interview panel was in accordance with law? According to the petitioner, selection of respondents No.3 to 7 on the basis of interviews conducted by an unconstitutional panel is illegal, void and is not maintainable under the law. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it is necessary to go through Regulation No.52 of the Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016 dealing with the constitution of a panel/commission for conducting interviews of the candidates, which reads as under:- "When a near relative or a close associate or an immediate subordinate of a Presiding Member/Member(s) of the Commission or of an Advisor or Departmental Representative is being interviewed, the concerned Presiding Member/Member(s) or the Advisor(s) or Departmental Representative shall not be allowed to be present and to participate in the proceedings of the interview of that candidate. Presiding Member of the Interview Committee shall clarify this aspect to Advisor(s) and Departmental Representative before the commencement of the interview, provided that where a candidate is a near relative or a close associate or an immediate subordinate of the Presiding Member/Member(s), in such case(s) the Presiding Member/Member(s) shall inform the Chairman to nominate another Presiding Member/ Member(s) to interview such candidate(s)."
In view of the aforesaid provisions if any candidate is a "near relative", "close associate" or "immediate subordinate" of any Presiding Member/Member(s), the said member(s) shall not be allowed to participate in the proceedings of interview of that candidate and the said member(s) shall inform the Chairman to nominate some other member(s) to interview such candidate. In the circumstances, it is necessary to go through the meanings/definitions of "near relative", "close associate" and "immediate subordinate".
9. It is deemed necessary to mention here that before passing the impugned order dated 04.05.2021 respondent No.1, called upon both the advisors of the interview panel namely, Professor Dr. Kamran Salick and Professor Dr. Khalil Ahmad Gill with a view to ask about their relationship with the candidates namely, Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique. In response thereto, Professor Dr. Kamran Salick appeared before respondent No.1 and submitted in writing that neither Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique were his relatives nor were they working under him. He, however, submitted that both of them were his post graduate trainees from 2013 to 2018 and if this comes into the definition of "close associate" then they can be considered close associates. Professor Dr. Khalil Ahmad Gill submitted in writing that none of the said candidates i.e. Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique, was his relative, associate or subordinate.
10. As regards "near relative", in view of social security guide', a near relative is a member of the immediate family, or an adopted child, whereas, in view of the definition of Law Insider' near relatives means the husband, wife, father, mother, sons, daughters, and brothers and sisters born of the same parents. However, as per Black's Law Dictionary, relative means "A person connected with another by blood or affinity; a person who is kin with another".
11. Close associate has been defined in different words, for example:-
1. As per definition of Law Insider, "close associate" means someone with whom you are in close regular contact over a period of time who is more than an acquaintance. It may be a friend, a colleague, a business associate or someone you know through general social contacts. It is someone a reasonable member of the public would think you might be prepared to favour/disadvantage.
2. As per definition of NSW Police Force, a "close associate" is any person involved in a security business who can significantly influence its conduct or operation due to their personal influence, company position or financial interest.
3. As per Oxford Learners Dictionaries, a person that you work with, do business with or spend a lot of time with business associates a close political associate of
4. The term "close associate" means:- (a) in relation to an individual means:
(i) his spouse;
(ii) any child or step-child, natural or adopted, under the age of 18 years of the individual or of his spouse (together with (a)(i) above, the "family interests");
5. A "close associate" means a person that you work with, do business with or spend a lot of time with.
6. A close associate means a natural person who is closely connected to a politically exposed person, either socially or professionally.
7. A close associate of a Senior Foreign Political Figure" shall mean a person who is widely and publicly known internationally to maintain an unusually close relationship with the Senior Foreign Political Figure, and includes a person who is in a position to conduct substantial domestic and international financial transactions on behalf of the Senior Foreign Political Figure.
8. A close associate means someone with whom you are in close regular contact over a period of time who is more than an acquaintance. It may be a friend, a colleague, a business associate or someone you know through general social contacts. It is someone a reasonable member of the public would think you might be prepared to favour/disadvantage.
9. Relatives and Close Associates sometimes referred to as PEPs by association are a type of politically exposed person who shares a family or friendship connection to a PEP. As outlined in FATF guidance, that connection may be a direct family relation or a connection through marriage (or civil partnership). Alternatively, it may be a social or professional association. The list of people who may qualify as RCAs includes: a. Spouses and partners b. Parents Children c. Siblings d. Uncles, aunts, cousins e. Spouses/parents of children f. Close friends g. Legal advisors h. Business associates RCAs may also be joint beneficial owners of an entity in which a PEP has an interest, or may be the sole beneficial owners of an entity set up for the benefit of a PEP.
12. So far as the word "immediate subordinate", is concerned, it means having a lower or less important position in role and status to those of the group. The subordination has further been explained in the following manner:-
1. As per Black's Law Dictionary, subordinate means, "Placed in or belonging to a lower rank, class, or position" and "subject to another's authority or control".
2. A group of persons or things organized into successive ranks or grades with each level subordinate to the one above: a career spent moving up through the military hierarchy.
3. Categorization or arrangement of a group of people or things into such ranks or grades: classification by hierarchy; discounting the effects of hierarchy.
4. A system of persons or things arranged in a graded order.
13. The rationale behind the use of terms near relative, close associate, immediate subordinate in Regulation No. 52 is that such relationship must manifest prejudice, in favour or against any candidate, but having gone through the petition, comments filed by respondent No.1, reply submitted on behalf of the other respondents as well as the aforesaid definitions, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that respondents No.3 to 7 were "near relatives", "close associates" or "immediate subordinates" to the advisors namely, Professor Dr. Kamran Salick and Professor Dr. Khalil Ahmad Gill, as alleged by the petitioner. The only fact that the candidates namely Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique, were admittedly postgraduate trainees of Advisor Professor Dr. Kamran Salick from 2013 to 2018 also does not make out a case that there was such a relation which can be made basis for such a favour, A trainee is just like a student and there might be some other trainees in the candidates appeared for interview. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that no violation of Regulation No. 52 of PPSC Regulations-2016 has occurred.
14. The contention of the petitioner that he was Assistant Professor (Ad hoc) and senior than all other selected candidates except for one, but has been ignored due to the relations of the candidates namely, Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique with the advisors namely Professor Dr. Kamran Salick and Professor Dr. Khalil Ahmad Gill, lacks weight for the reason that an ad hoc employment does not confer any right. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of Pakistan Telecommunication (supra), wherein it has been held as under:- "Another distinction that we would like to draw through this judgment for the purposes of clarity is between an "ad hoe" or temporary employee, a contract employee and a permanent employee.
The term temporary suggests a post which has been. temporarily created for a definite period of time or for a certain purpose/project, and upon the completion of that project, services of the temporary employee appointed in it are accordingly terminated. On the other hand, an ad hoc employee is also a temporary employee who is appointed for an existing post for a short period of time, or for a specific purpose, in lieu of the person eligible for that post and upon the appointment of that eligible regular appointee, or with the lapse of time, the ad hoc employee is automatically relieved. It is pertinent to note that an ad hoc, temporary or contractual appointment does not create any vested right of regularization in favour of the appointee."
In this regard reference can also be made to the case of Naila Khalid (supra).
15. It is also noticed that in case the marks given by the advisor Dr. Kamran Salick to the two recommended candidates namely Dr. Imran Haider & Dr. Kashif Siddique are excluding/disregarding from the merit list in the light of Regulation No.54 of PPSC Regulations-2016, in order to remove all kinds of doubt and to satisfy the petitioner, even then there would be no effect on the merit list.
16. Even otherwise, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is limited to the extent of ensuring that state functionaries did what they were required by law to do and refrain from doing what they were prohibited by law to do and unless an act or omission of a state functionary fell within the said parameters it cannot be interfered with and such interference would constitute this Court overstepping its jurisdiction and entering the domain of the executive which is contrary to the concept of trichotomy of powers as per the scheme of the Constitution. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case of Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission, Lahore and others vs. Aamir Hayat and others (2019 SCMR 124).
17. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, therefore, this petition having no merit is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.