ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has actually been sorry for that the Punjab chief minister, who designates the vice chancellor of Agriculture College, Faisalabad, delighted in ‘decide on’ with a ‘pre-determined mind’ in his April 16, 2019, alert in favour of an individual that was ‘reduced on benefit’.
“The factors supplied by the chief minister show a workout of decide on with a pre-determined mind and also a conscious and also deliberate initiative shows up to have actually been made to contrive reasons to assign a person lower on merit and also deprive a person better qualified, higher on advantage and undoubtedly preferable for the post,” wrote Justice Ijaz-ul-Ahsan in his judgement.
The monitoring came through a reasoning on an appeal filed by Dr Iqrar Ahmad Khan against a March 5, 2020, Lahore High Court order in an intra-court allure which had restored the April 2019 notification in favour of Dr Muhammad Ashraf as brand-new vice chancellor of the Farming College.
Consequently, the second period of Dr Iqrar as vice chancellor was supported by the Supreme Court.
The High court bench listening to the situation contains Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Justice Ijazul Ahsan and also Justice Munib Akhtar.
The bench claimed the chief minister’s action totaled up to an illegal, arbitrary, capricious as well as unchecked exercise of discretion. This perspective can not be countenanced as the search committee had placed Dr Iqrar Khan, the petitioner, on top of the benefit list.
Not just did Dr Iqrar top the written examination, yet he also got the highest marks in the interview– the very same meeting in which Dr Ashraf did not carry out well.
Hence the reasons given by the chief minister for the vice chancellor’s consultation absence bona fide as well as openness. They are neither sound nor show consistency in decision-making, the reasoning regretted.
Describing the 2nd factor put forward by the chief minister for turning down Dr Iqrar’s consultation that the petitioner was not able to hold the needed number of meetings of the university distribute, the apex court observed that given that the appellant was not called for to hold a specified number of organization conferences, he can not be held ineligible for the placement for refraining what he was not needed to do under the legislation.
Referring to the intra-court allure judgement in which the Lahore High Court had actually held that it can not settle upon the factors offered by the chief minister, the High court stated this monitoring comprised an abdication of territory and the power of judicial evaluation over management activities– a characteristic of the high court’s territory under Article 199 of the Constitution.
“We have been not able to discover the basis, rational factor or reasoning behind the sight taken by the high court that the reasons taped by the assigning authority do not need to undergo judicial examination,” the reasoning said.
The Supreme Court observed that the chief minister made no effort to examine audit paragraphs to determine whether they were in fact connected to the financial control as well as management ability of the petitioner.
The record shows that the chief minister videotaped a basic finding without determining facts with any degree of accuracy or due application of mind, the judgement stated. Absolutely nothing had been revealed to the court to link the audit paras with the poor financial controls of the applicant, it included.
The document discloses that the secretary of the Punjab farming department– the major accounting officer of the rural federal government– was part of the search (distribute) committee as well as put the petitioner at serial number 1 on the value listing by providing him 10 out of 10 marks in the category of management and also economic administration. Furthermore, the appellant was offered 45 marks in the interview while Dr Ashraf protected just 31 marks.
“When the rep of the provincial government, who had first-hand understanding of all material as well as relevant realities, likewise gave highest possible marks to the applicant as well as low marks to the respondent [Dr Ashraf], we do not see why the applicant was not selected and that too without strong and convicting factors,” the judgement said.