SC finally decides case of IIU academic’s appointment
Litigation spanned nine years, with seven orders passed by apex court, IHC
The Supreme Court of Pakistan. PHOTO: AFP
ISLAMABAD:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) has held that state authority in every sphere of life is a sacred trust which is to be exercised fairly and justly by the functionaries to accomplish the purposes assigned to them by law.
“Adherence to the statutory rules and procedures for selection of public jobs is the only surest method to objectively select the best out of the best from a competing lot; it is rooted into the fundamentals of equal opportunity, equal treatment and equal protections; any deviation therefrom would rock the bottom of the Republic, resting upon equiponderance”, says the order in a matter related to the illegal appointment of an Assistant Professor of Urdu of BPS-19 at the International Islamic University.
Interestingly, litigation in the case had continued for nine years wherein seven different orders had been passed by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) as well as the apex court. Even the top court has remanded the case to the IHC twice.
The SC’s final order, authored by Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, has also held that it is the duty of the functionaries to do right to all people without any distinction.
The order emphasized that it is most important that the right people are selected for official positions to serve the ‘Republic’ as it is imperative to survive and sustain in today’s competitive world; deviation would be treacherously seditious, it says.
“The Constitutionally recognized principle of equal opportunity is strengthened by divine affirmation, upheld and followed by every modern Constitution of the day”. The court also noted that the stream of justice must run pure and clean.
Facts of case:
Petitioner Dr Shamim Tariq was first appointed under Tenure Track System, hereinafter referred to as the T.T.S, as an Assistant Professor of Urdu in BPS-19, way back on June 13, 2009; her services were terminated on September 29, 2010.
She later approached the Islamabad High Court. However, she withdrew her petition on assurance by the University to take her on board for consideration for a future appointment, and it is in this backdrop that she was appointed as Lecturer (Urdu) in BPS-18, IIU on February 8, 2011 on an ad hoc basis; after availing an extension for a further six months, she was still on the job when the University advertised on June 19, 2011 various academic posts that included Assistant Professor (Urdu) in BPS-19; in the meantime, she was terminated once again on October 5, 2011. The petitioner applied once again but failed to join five short listed candidates and Dr Sadia Tahir secured the appointment. In 2012, Dr Shamim Tariq approached the IHC against Dr Sadia’s appointment.
An IHC judge, on April 6, 2012, set aside her appointment while directing the University to draw up the process afresh so as to consider Dr Shamim Tariq. The university then filed an intra court appeal against the order. However, the same was also dismissed. In 2013, the apex court remanded the matter to the IHC for reconsideration. The larger bench of the high court again dismissed the University’s plea but once again the apex court remanded the matter for reconsideration in 2015. In 2018, the IHC affirmed Dr Sadia’s appointment. The petitioner then again challenged the high court order in the apex court.
The apex court’s final order has noted that the candidates were required to meet the above criteria on the date of submission of their applications i.e. June 30, 2011; Dr Sadia did not possess the requisite qualification on the said date and, as such, was not qualified to be considered for the job, a position at a seat of learning maintained by the exchequer.
“Respondent’s (Dr Sadia) acclaimed academic brilliance as well as extensive teaching experience notwithstanding, digression from the prescribed criteria cannot be countenanced without setting an ominous precedent, casting its fall-out on other disciplines as well”.
Consequently, the court has set aside her appointment as Assistant Professor (Urdu) in BPS-19.
It also directed the University Selection Board to convene at the earliest to appoint a suitable candidate from amongst the already short listed candidates, excluding both the petitioner as well as the respondent. It also instructed that the exercise be completed within a period of three months with a dispatch of the compliance report.
The court also rejected Dr Shamim’s plea for appointment as Assistant Professor (Urdu) in BPS-19 against the same post through quo warranto, which cannot be granted in as much as the court can certainly issue a direction for an incumbent’s departure from the office for lack of credentials. Nonetheless, the court said, conclusion of such an exercise would not, by itself, pave way to fill the vacancy merely on the ground that the competitor had no justification to hold the same and that she was better placed in circumstances.
The Supreme Court of Pakistan (SC) has held that state authority in every sphere of life is a sacred trust which is to be exercised fairly and justly by the functionaries to accomplish the purposes assigned to them by law.
“Adherence to the statutory rules and procedures for selection of public jobs is the only surest method to objectively select the best out of the best from a competing lot; it is rooted into the fundamentals of equal opportunity, equal treatment and equal protections; any deviation therefrom would rock the bottom of the Republic, resting upon equiponderance”, says the order in a matter related to the illegal appointment of an Assistant Professor of Urdu of BPS-19 at the International Islamic University.
Interestingly, litigation in the case had continued for nine years wherein seven different orders had been passed by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) as well as the apex court. Even the top court has remanded the case to the IHC twice.
The SC’s final order, authored by Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, has also held that it is the duty of the functionaries to do right to all people without any distinction.
The order emphasized that it is most important that the right people are selected for official positions to serve the ‘Republic’ as it is imperative to survive and sustain in today’s competitive world; deviation would be treacherously seditious, it says.
“The Constitutionally recognized principle of equal opportunity is strengthened by divine affirmation, upheld and followed by every modern Constitution of the day”. The court also noted that the stream of justice must run pure and clean.
Facts of case:
Petitioner Dr Shamim Tariq was first appointed under Tenure Track System, hereinafter referred to as the T.T.S, as an Assistant Professor of Urdu in BPS-19, way back on June 13, 2009; her services were terminated on September 29, 2010.
She later approached the Islamabad High Court. However, she withdrew her petition on assurance by the University to take her on board for consideration for a future appointment, and it is in this backdrop that she was appointed as Lecturer (Urdu) in BPS-18, IIU on February 8, 2011 on an ad hoc basis; after availing an extension for a further six months, she was still on the job when the University advertised on June 19, 2011 various academic posts that included Assistant Professor (Urdu) in BPS-19; in the meantime, she was terminated once again on October 5, 2011. The petitioner applied once again but failed to join five short listed candidates and Dr Sadia Tahir secured the appointment. In 2012, Dr Shamim Tariq approached the IHC against Dr Sadia’s appointment.
An IHC judge, on April 6, 2012, set aside her appointment while directing the University to draw up the process afresh so as to consider Dr Shamim Tariq. The university then filed an intra court appeal against the order. However, the same was also dismissed. In 2013, the apex court remanded the matter to the IHC for reconsideration. The larger bench of the high court again dismissed the University’s plea but once again the apex court remanded the matter for reconsideration in 2015. In 2018, the IHC affirmed Dr Sadia’s appointment. The petitioner then again challenged the high court order in the apex court.
The apex court’s final order has noted that the candidates were required to meet the above criteria on the date of submission of their applications i.e. June 30, 2011; Dr Sadia did not possess the requisite qualification on the said date and, as such, was not qualified to be considered for the job, a position at a seat of learning maintained by the exchequer.
“Respondent’s (Dr Sadia) acclaimed academic brilliance as well as extensive teaching experience notwithstanding, digression from the prescribed criteria cannot be countenanced without setting an ominous precedent, casting its fall-out on other disciplines as well”.
Consequently, the court has set aside her appointment as Assistant Professor (Urdu) in BPS-19.
It also directed the University Selection Board to convene at the earliest to appoint a suitable candidate from amongst the already short listed candidates, excluding both the petitioner as well as the respondent. It also instructed that the exercise be completed within a period of three months with a dispatch of the compliance report.
The court also rejected Dr Shamim’s plea for appointment as Assistant Professor (Urdu) in BPS-19 against the same post through quo warranto, which cannot be granted in as much as the court can certainly issue a direction for an incumbent’s departure from the office for lack of credentials. Nonetheless, the court said, conclusion of such an exercise would not, by itself, pave way to fill the vacancy merely on the ground that the competitor had no justification to hold the same and that she was better placed in circumstances.