| Case ID |
2d346198-265e-4dba-a25f-6d22b129f005 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-1016 of 2015 |
| Decision Date |
Oct 01, 2015 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the Constitutional Petition No. D-1016 of 2015 on October 1st, 2015. The court held that the petitioner, Abdul Khalique, failed to establish any vested right or discriminatory practice as required under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The petitioner sought the upgradation of his post from BS-16 to BS-17, alleging discriminatory induction practices within the Board of Investment. However, the court found that the petitioner voluntarily accepted the BS-16 position and did not demonstrate any specific violation of law or rules that would warrant judicial intervention. Additionally, the court noted that the different designations and duties of Public Relations Officers, Information Officers, and Protocol Officers justified their placement in different grades. Therefore, the petition was dismissed without any order as to costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark Constitutional Petition No. D-1016 of 2015, the Sindh High Court deliberated on allegations of discriminatory practices within the Board of Investment (BoI) concerning the appointment and promotion of Public Relations Officers (PRO). The petitioner, Abdul Khalique, a Public Relations Officer in BS-16 grade, contended that his induction through the Federal Public Service Commission at a lower grade compared to his counterparts in other departments constituted discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan, which guarantees equality before the law. He sought the upgradation of his post to BS-17, arguing that similar positions in other federal and provincial organizations were appointed at a higher grade, thereby disadvantaging him.
The court meticulously examined the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Articles 4, 25, and 199, alongside the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. Article 25 emphasizes equal protection of the law but does not mandate identical treatment in all circumstances. The court referenced several precedents, including the case of Jibendra Kishore Achharyya Chowdhury and others v. The Province of East Pakistan, PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 9, which elucidated that reasonable classifications based on differentials in duties and qualifications are permissible and do not inherently violate constitutional principles.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the discretionary powers granted to different ministries and divisions to determine their appointment methods in consultation with the Establishment Division, as stipulated in Rule 3(2) of the Civil Servants Rules. This flexibility allows for tailored recruitment processes that reflect the unique demands and responsibilities of various departments. In Abdul Khalique's case, the distinction between PRO, Information Officer, and Protocol Officer roles justified their placement in different grades, considering the varying qualifications and responsibilities associated with each position.
The petitioner’s failure to demonstrate that the differential treatment amounted to arbitrary or irrational discrimination played a pivotal role in the court's decision. The evidence presented did not substantiate claims of unfair practices or violation of any specific legal provisions that would necessitate judicial intervention. Additionally, the petitioner's voluntary acceptance of the BS-16 position, coupled with the absence of a demonstrated vested right, further weakened his case.
The court also addressed testimonials and internal communications that pointed to the petitioner’s alleged inadequacies in fulfilling his role as PRO, thereby undermining his claims of entitlement to upgradation. Statements from supervisory authorities highlighted issues such as poor performance in protocol duties and lack of necessary qualifications for higher-grade responsibilities, reinforcing the rationale behind his current grade placement.
In conclusion, the Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the legitimacy of the BoI's appointment and promotion practices within the framework of the Constitution and existing civil service regulations. The judgment underscored the importance of reasonable classification in civil service appointments and the necessity for petitioners to provide concrete evidence of discrimination or violation of specific legal provisions to prevail in such constitutional challenges. This decision reaffirms the judiciary's stance on maintaining a balance between ensuring equal protection under the law and recognizing the administrative flexibility required for effective governance in diverse governmental departments. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Establishment Division,
Federal Public Service Commission,
Board of Investment,
Prime Minister's Office
|
| Judges |
Munib Akhtar,
Aziz-ur-Rehman
|
| Lawyers |
Shaikh Liaquat Hussain,
Ms. Nasreen Ali
|
| Petitioners |
Abdul Khalique
|
| Respondents |
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Board of Investment and 4 others
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 651,
2016 PLC 530
|
| Other Citations |
Jibendra Kishore Achharyya Chowdhury and 58 others v. The Province of East Pakistan PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 9,
I.A. Sherwani's case 1991 SCMR 1041,
F.B. Ali's case PLD 1975 SC 506,
Abdul Wali Khan's case PLD 1976 SC 57,
Aziz Begum's case PLD 1990 SC 899,
Shirin Munir and others v. Government of Punjab PLD 1990 SC 295,
Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others 2011 SCMR 1813 rel.
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan,
Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973
|
| Sections |
Article 25,
Article 199,
Article 4,
Rule 3(2),
Rule 10
|