BHC stops selection of trade offices for foreign postings

Two-judge bench issues notice to AGP over petition filed by CMIT members


Shahbaz Rana July 25, 2019
Balochistan High Court. PHOTO: FILE

ISLAMABAD: The Balochistan High Court has restrained the federal government from selecting trade officers for their postings abroad, following a legal challenge to the government policy mounted by a member of the provincial Chief Minister’s Inspection Team (CMIT).

A constitutional petition, filed by Shehryar Taj, a serving as member of the CMIT, Balochistan, has raised objections, saying that the police was discriminatory as it largely benefited two civil service groups at the expense of others.

The BHC fixed the case for hearing on July 31 and issued notices to the attorney general. The court order comes as the Ministry of Commerce has planned candidates’ tests on Saturday tomorrow). “Till the next day of hearing, the Ministry of Commerce and Trade, Government of Pakistan, is restrained from conducting tests”, reads the order by a two-judge bench of the BHC.

The petitioner has taken the plea that the “criteria of selection of trade investment officer for posting at Pakistan’s trade mission abroad for the year 2019 is against the guaranteed right of the application petitioner and all other eligible candidates”.

The petitioned stated that fixing of criteria was to accommodate the favourite ones and to deprive the candidate, eligible as per the previous criteria, therefore, this is discrimination, hence is violation of the Article 25 of the Constitution.

A few civil servants have also gone to the Lahore High Court (LHC) and Islamabad High Court (IHC) against the selection policy of the commerce ministry. The IHC has already given temporarily relief to the petitioners, with directions to the commerce ministry to take written examination.

The petitions came after the ministry issued an advertisement in the press in June for the selection of trade and investment officers for posting at Pakistan’s trade missions abroad. The ministry had sought applications from interested officers serving in basic pay scale 18 to 21 and candidates from the Pakistani diaspora, fulfilling the requisite eligibility criteria.

However, the policy appeared to benefit the Customs and the Trade and Commerce groups of the civil service, sources said. This was evident from the fact that over 70 people have been shortlisted from the Customs Group and over 60 from the Trade and Commerce Group. “There is explicit discrimination against the Economist Group and the Inland Revenue Service Group,” said a source.

Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) Chairman Shabbar Zaidi had also raised his concerns over the decision of the ministry of commerce to exclude Inland Revenue Service (IRS) officers for the postings as trade and investment officers abroad.

The sources said that the ministry was under pressure from the Prime Minister’s Office to complete the selection process before the end of next month. “There was also a realisation in the ministry about the flawed selection policy but its hands were tied,” said another source.

The commerce ministry excluded the posting period in the Planning Commission from the experience column, which worked against many potential candidates. But the problem was discriminatory treatment being meted out to the Economist Group and Inland Revenue Service.

The policy also adversely affected the powerful Pakistan Administrative Service. In the eligibility criteria, the federal ministries of planning, development and reform along with the ministry of finance were omitted – which excluded the potential applicants from the Economists Group.

The required qualification as per the eligibility criteria includes BSc Engineering whereas the degree in economics has not been included despite being the most relevant field as per the syllabus. In earlier examinations for the post of trade officers abroad, officers working in Planning Division were not excluded.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ