close
Thursday March 28, 2024

SC gives three principles for NAB recruitments

By Tariq Butt
April 03, 2017

ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has handed down an authoritative judgment enunciating three key principles in relation to previous and future key recruitments in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) so that perfectly qualified persons are inducted in the premier anti-graft agency.

The ruling of a three-judge bench came on suo moto proceedings on an anonymous application wherein it was alleged that illegalities, contraventions and violations were committed in the appointments made in the NAB. Some senior officials had to go home as a result of this verdict.

According to these points, certain recruitments in the NAB must be filled through the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) “in the larger public interest”; the prime minister doesn’t have power to make policy for some inductions in the NAB; and the NAB chairman can’t relax rules in such appointments.

It was noted in the first point that the court was aware that the NAB’s recruitment rules exclude appointments through the FPSC but “in the larger public interest”, the FPSC shall undertake this exercise and the specific posts shall be filled in by observing the mandate of Articles 240 and 241 of the Constitution, as they are extremely sensitive and only the most qualified candidates should be appointed.

The judges expected that all the existing vacancies in the NAB or that may occur pursuant to the findings of a committee shall be filled within three months through the FPSC from the date the proposed body finally submits its report for its perusal. In the intervening period, the NAB shall requisition its existing vacancies to the FPSC, which shall take steps for filling up the same, the judgment said.

The second point related to a policy issued by (ex) Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali to “support and encourage sportspersons with regard to Ms Aliya Rasheed”. The policy stated in order to promote sports at grass-root level and inculcate discipline amongst the masses for national integration and cohesion, sportsmen of national and international level may be provided jobs in government departments and large organizations like PIA, WAPDA, Police, Railways and other federal and provincial departments and autonomous bodies through a proper selection procedure. For this purpose departments and organizations concerned should make necessary provision in their service rules.

The judgment said that supporting Aliya Rasheed’s appointment on the basis of this policy is not sustainable on a number of grounds. First, the NAB Ordinance, its Employees Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS) and its Methods of Appointment and Qualification (MAQ) do not vest the premier with any authority to issue such a policy. Second, pursuant to the purported policy neither the MAQ nor the TCS were amended. Third, her appointment was made without advertising the post or inviting equally placed persons to participate. Simply issuing such “policy” without any further action cannot substitute the provisions of the NAB Ordinance, the TCS and/or the MAQ.

According to the decision, it is, therefore, quite clear that none of the arguments and contentions that were advanced could justify the appointments, inductions or transfers.

Dealing with the third point, the judgment said that as regards the argument that the NAB chairman possesses the power to relax any provision or condition under Rule 14.01 of the TCS and in making the appointments he is presumed to have done so is negated by this Rule itself. His power to relax is circumscribed by this itself. To begin with this Rule is premised on the fact that the person affected by any particular provision or condition is already a NAB employee, which was not so in the present case, as deputationists in NAB are not its employees. This Rule does not apply to those who are being appointed or inducted in NAB. In addition the NAB chairman can only exercise his powers to relax rules only to the extent that a particular provision or condition “causes hardship” and provided it is “just and equitable”.

All these factors have to be attended to by the chairman, “in writing”. Moreover, nothing has been brought on the record to show that he had actually exercised such powers. If a person does not have the requisite academic qualification it cannot be construed to “cause hardship”, therefore, the question of providing “just and equitable treatment” in terms of Rule 14.01 would not arise.

The court held that the NAB chairman did not have the authority to relax the rules by compromising eligibility and academic qualifications.

On the issue of requisite experience in the initial appointments in the NAB, the Establishment Secretary noticed 96 officers who lacked the requisite experience and he suggested with the consent of the NAB chairman that a committee be formed to examine the issue.

The judges agreed with this suggestion and constituted such committee, which shall be headed by Establishment Secretary Syed Tahir Shahbaz, who shall be its chairman and its members shall be Muhammad Shakeel Malik, Director General (Human Resource), NAB, and an FPSC representative to be nominated by its chairman.

The Establishment Secretary found 137 promotions made in NAB to be inconsistent with the TCS and or MAQ and the NAB authorities concur with him. The NAB chairman informed the court that out of these 137 officers, 35 have retired. The bench directed that the remaining officers shall be issued show cause notices to appear before the committee, which shall afford them an opportunity of a hearing and decide their cases within two months from the date they appear before it.