ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that appointments to key public offices must demonstrably conform to constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, institutional integrity and merit-based governance, holding that executive authority cannot be exercised on undisclosed considerations or in disregard of established selection procedures.
Upholding a judgment of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) that set aside the appointment of the petitioner as chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE), Bannu, the FCC emphasized that the legitimacy of public administration depends not only on the existence of power but on its transparent and disciplined exercise in accordance with the law.
A 12-page judgment authored by Justice Rozi Khan Barrech held that public authority cannot be exercised for ulterior motives, nor can structured procedures be reduced to empty formalities.
“The legitimacy of public administration depends not merely on the existence of power but on the disciplined and transparent exercise of that power in accordance with law,” the judgment observed.
Commenting on the FCC ruling, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said he agrees “wholeheartedly that appointments to key public offices, such as judges of higher courts, must be demonstrably consistent with constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, institutional integrity and must be merit-based”.
“And that such appointments cannot be exercised based on secret considerations, nor can structured procedures such as the Judicial Commission be reduced to empty formalities,” he added.
Jaferii also welcomed the verdict, saying that “when the tide turns, it will be a fitting precedent for the winding up of the 26th and 27th Amendment courts”.
The case was heard by a three-member FCC bench headed by Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi.
According to the verdict, the protocol showed that following the announcement for the post of chairman, BISE Bannu, the government set up a search and control committee on 8 February 2021 to evaluate candidates and recommend three names in accordance with the commission.
The committee examined the shortlisted candidates and sent three names for the consideration of the Chief Minister.
However, the court noted that the original summary, which had been duly processed through the administrative hierarchy, was later amended without any fresh consideration by the committee, without any reasons on record and without any legal justification apparent from the record.
“The petitioner, who was not among the candidates recommended by the committee, was later inserted in the summary dated 28.01.2025 and ultimately appointed by the competent authority vide notification dated 13.05.2025,” the order said.
