PHC moved against WSSP for alleged nepotism in appointment

PESHAWAR: A petition has been filed in the Peshawar High Court (PHC) against chief executive Water and Sanitation Services Peshawar (WSSP) and general manager Human Resource for resorting to nepotism and favouritism in an interview and violating merit in appointment of manager communication and media management.

The petition was filed by a candidate Yousaf Ali through his lawyer Inayatur Rehman, seeking the court’s order to declare the appointment as void as merit was violated by bringing the top candidates to the bottom for ensuring appointment of a “blue-eyed” candidate.

Chief Executive WSSP, general manager HR, and Hassan Ali, who was appointed on the post, were made parties in the petition.

About facts of the case, it was submitted that the WSSP advertised various vacancies and sought applications from the interested candidates fulfilling the required qualification.

The petitioner having the required qualification of Masters in Journalism and relevant experience of 20 years also applied for the post of Manager Communication and Media Management.

The petition noted that seven candidates were shortlisted for the post. It was submitted that the petitioner being senior most among the candidates and having required experience was awarded 14 marks out of 28 in the interview and was not selected for the post. It said a candidate with less educational marks was declared successful and appointed on the post.

In grounds of the petition, it was stated that the act and error of the chief executive WSSP and general manager is illegal and unlawful.

It argued that the petitioner has not been treated according to the law and rules and his rights secured by the Constitution were brazenly violated by the respondents.

It was pointed out that the respondents had resorted to nepotism and favouritism in the interview as merit list was completely changed by bringing the top candidates to the bottom and vice versa.

It was submitted that the respondents had committed illegality by reducing the experience marks of the petitioner from 20 years to 10 years of relevant experience, thus cutting two marks. It argued the respondents ignored the fact that the petitioner has 20 years of experience in the field of journalism and has served on senior positions in reputable national and international organisations.

The petition said the respondents committed gross illegality by awarding the petitioner six marks of the post-master’s degree experience even though he deserved eight marks. “Interestingly, the total estimated marks of the qualification and experience of the petitioner, according to the criteria given by the respondents, are 58 marks, but he was awarded 56 marks,” the petition claimed.

The petition stated that the respondents committed favouritism by awarding the respondent No. 3 (Hassan Ali) 47 marks of qualification and experience and also extra marks for experience.

“The experience of the respondent No. 3 has been shown as 11 years, for which he was awarded 7 marks as his post-master’s degree experience cannot be counted as 11 years by any means because he has obtained his master’s degree in 2007,” it was stated. The petition added that in 2008 he left for abroad for two years to study and returned in December 2010.

According to the petition, the respondent No 3 has acquired an experience certificate from 2007 to 2012 from an organisation which does not even have its office in Peshawar and, therefore, his experience cannot be taken as genuine as he was abroad for two years.

It was submitted that when his two years of experience is excluded, his total marks would go down to 45 from 47.