The Sindh High Court (SHC) has set aside the Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) advertisement for the appointment of four air transport & economic regulations (AT&ER) joint directors, ordering the CAA to first try to fill the vacancies from within the organisation, as envisaged in its service regulations.
Mohammad Suleman Ghouri and other petitioners had challenged the selection process initiated by the CAA to fill four positions of AT&ER joint director. Their counsel said his clients are working at executive grade-4 as senior deputy directors in the CAA’s AT&ER directorate, and in the next few months they would be eligible to be considered for their promotion to EG-5.
He said that the same post has been advertised on a three-year-contract basis in the impugned advertisement, reducing the eligibility criterion — in particular, the length of service — to five years from 12 years, as mentioned in the service regulations, only to accommodate their favourites.
He also said if the available vacancies at EG-5 as AT&ER joint directors are filled through the impugned advertisement, it is bound to jeopardise the career of his clients. The additional attorney general questioned the petition’s maintainability, saying that it is an executive decision and policy matter to issue such advertisements for selecting the best candidates.
Secondly, he continued, since the CAA’s service rules/regulations are non-statutory, the petitioners cannot, directly or indirectly, agitate any grievance relating to their employment through the present petition.
After hearing the arguments, an SHC division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Faisal Kamal Alam said that any organisation, even a state institution, cannot viably deliver results as required of them if their employees or team members become disenchanted and disengaged due to unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory policies adopted by those at the helm of affairs.
The court said that the total length of service required to fill the subject post of AT&ER joint director, as per the regulations, is 12 years, while in the impugned advertisement this crucial criterion has been reduced to five years.
The bench said that the names and credentials of the short-listed candidates are also mentioned in the compliance report and have been perused, and except one candidate, who has an educational background and experience in aviation, none of the candidates possesses a level of academic qualification or practical experience that can justify the CAA’s stance.
The court said that the CAA’s stance about short-listing candidates in pursuance of the impugned advertisement is in violation of the prescribed service regulations and cannot be endorsed.
The bench said that there is another aspect of the matter, which is the timing of the advertisement, which has been published around six months before the petitioners are poised to complete the 12-year threshold of service, one of the prerequisites for consideration for the AT&ER joint director post.
The court said that this last-minute rush to reduce the available slots before all the petitioners qualify appears oddly hastened on the part of the CAA, as the vacancy for the posts has not been articulated by the CAA’s counsel to be closed as a matter of national emergency, notwithstanding that the modus operandi as an objective and inclusive recruitment design process does not appear to meet such goals.
The bench granted the petition to the extent that the subject AT&ER posts cannot be filled through the impugned advertisement by circumventing and violating the prescribed eligibility criteria of the service regulations.
Thus, said the SHC, to the extent of the subject posts, the decision and steps taken so far by the CAA are illegal and are, therefore, being set aside.
The court directed the CAA to first try to fill the vacancies from within the organisation, as envisaged in its service regulations. The bench said the order is not a bar on the prerogative of the competent authority and management of the CAA to appoint the best of the best candidates from different channels through a legitimate selection process, but within the frame of the governing law, the CAA’s rules and service regulations.
