Court grills govt lawyer over PMS appointments

The appointment of combined competitive exam (CCE) 2018-qualified candidates in the provincial management service (PMS) and other groups has been challenged in the Sindh High Court.

The Hyderabad circuit bench comprising Justice Nadeem Akhtar and Justice Mehmood A Khan questioned the government's counsel on Tuesday regarding these appointments.

As many as six candidates who qualified the exam conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) have taken the matter to court.

Their counsel, Abdul Salam Memon, apprised the court that the SPSC advertised 82 assistant commissioner posts, 123 of section officers (SO), 15 of excise and taxation officers and nine of assistant registrars, all in BPS-17, on February 19, 2018.

The result of the screening test was announced on August 20, 2018 and the written exams were conducted from November 5 to 20, 2018. On July 29, 2019, the SPSC announced the result, declaring 554 candidates successful, as well as the date for the interviews, beginning from August 23 to October 17.

In a press release on the same day, the SPSC informed the candidates that the posts of the ACs and SOs had been merged into the PMS group in compliance with a notification of the Sindh government dated March 20, 2018.

The qualifying candidates were asked to select among the BPS-17 posts of officers of PMS, excise and taxation officer and assistant registrar cooperative societies. In terms of preference, no choice was given for the posts of AC or SO against the advertisement.

On October 25, 2019, the SPSC issued a merit list, recommending 193 candidates for the PMS group. The PMS was notified on March 20, 2018, and the PMS rules were published in the Sindh government’s gazette on January 3, 2019.

The CCE 2018, however, was announced on February 19, 2018, over a month before the PMS notification. Besides, the PMS rules notification did not mention any retrospective application and the advertisement was not amended to offer posts of PMS.

The bench asked the additional advocate-general to explain why the appointments were not made according to the advertisement. The AAG said that the new rules came into force before the appointment. Dissatisfied with the answer, the bench once again asked him to explain why the posts were not re-advertised following the change in the rules.

All six petitioners, based on the merit list, had qualified for the post of the assistant commissioner if the appointment rules applicable at the time of the advertisement had remained in force.

The petitioners' counsel argued that the SPSC had sought applications for posts including ACs and SOs. "It's abundantly clear that the appointments in question were subject to the rules prevailing then."

He gave the reference of a 2017 Supreme Court order which reads that "candidates should be selected for all advertised posts, unless they don't pass the written [exam]."

The petitioners prayed the court to declare the implementation of the new rules on earlier advertised posts as illegal and the preference forms obtained by the candidates void. The court was also urged to order the government to issue appointment orders for the petitioners as per the advertised posts.

The hearing was adjourned till October 6.