ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that appointments to important public offices must clearly conform to constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, institutional integrity and merit-based governance, holding that executive power cannot be exercised on undisclosed considerations or in disregard of established selection procedures.
Upholding a judgment of the Peshawar High Court (PHC) which quashed the petitioner’s appointment as chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE), Bannu, the FCC emphasized that the legitimacy of public administration does not depend merely on the existence of power but on its transparent and disciplined exercise in accordance with law.
A twelve-page judgment written by Justice Rozi Khan Barrech said public authority cannot be exercised on undisclosed considerations, nor can structured procedures be reduced to futile formalities.
“The legitimacy of public administration depends not only on the existence of power, but also on the disciplined and transparent exercise of this power in accordance with the law,” notes the judgment.
Commenting on the FCC ruling, lawyer Abdul Moiz Jaferii said it was “unqualified that appointments to important public offices, such as those of superior court judges, must clearly conform to constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, institutional integrity and must be based on merit.”
“And that such appointments cannot be made on undisclosed considerations and structured procedures such as the judicial commission cannot be reduced to vain formalities,” he added.
Jaferii also praised the ruling, saying that “when the tide turns, it will be a fitting precedent for dismantling 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 judgment, the record shows that after the announcement of the post of BISE Bannu Chairman, the government constituted a search and review committee on February 8, 2021 to evaluate the candidates and recommend three names as per the terms of reference.
The committee reviewed the shortlisted candidates and forwarded three names for consideration by the chief minister.
However, the court noted that the initial summary, which had been duly processed by the administrative hierarchy, was subsequently amended without further deliberation by the commission, without any reason recorded and without any legal justification emerging from the record.
“The petitioner, who was not among the candidates recommended by the Commission, was subsequently included in the summary dated 28.01.2025 and finally appointed by the competent authority vide notification dated 13.05.2025,” the order said.
