SHC directs Sindh govt to de-notify posting of Sindh Textbook Board chairman

The Sindh High Court (SHC) has declared the appointment of the Sindh Textbook Board (STBB) as unlawful and directed the Sindh government to de-notify the posting of the current STBB chairman forthwith.

The high court directed the government to appoint a new chairman of the textbook board after advertising the post and observing all the codal formalities provided under the law.

The SHC, however, made it clear that in the intervening period, no ad hoc arrangement shall be made as far as the posting of the STBB chairman was concerned. The order came on a petition of Pervez Ahmed Baloch who had contended that the appointment of the STBB chairman was made in violation of the law.

The petitioner’s counsel, Zamir Ghumro, maintained that the petitioner was transferred from the post of the STBB chairman without completing his tenure of three years and such a transfer violated the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court.

He submitted that the STBB chairman was not to be transferred under the Section 4 of the Sindh Text Book Board Ordinance 1970 and the transfer and posting were to be made due to exigency of service and not otherwise.

A provincial law officer questioned the maintainability of the petition and submitted that the service of the petitioner was not a tenure post to attract the dicta laid down by the SC and requested the high court to dismiss the petition.

A division bench of the SHC comprising Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar and Justice Adnanul Karim Memon after hearing the arguments of the counsels observed that the appointment of the STBB chairman was admittedly not preceded by the advertisement of the post to enable other eligible persons to be considered for recruitment.

The high court observed that the non-issuance of an advertisement to give opportunity for competition to other eligible persons was a violation of the doctrine of equality embodied in the articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution. The bench observed that this fundamental deficiency in the STBB chairman’s appointment process could not have been condoned by the Sindh

government.

The SHC observed that it had been noticed that the Sindh government had not adhered to the constitutional command to fill the STBB chairman’s post. It observed that unfortunately, the Sindh government continued to flout court orders and posted the officer of their own choice by resorting to the cadre rules without a competitive process.

The bench observed that the appointment in the public sector was a trust in the hands of public authorities and it was their legal and moral duty to discharge their function as a trustee with complete transparency as per the requirement of law so that no person who was eligible to hold such post was excluded from the process of selection and deprived of his right of appointment in service.

The high court observed that the constitution guaranteed the right of citizens to compete and participate for appointment to a post in any federal or a provincial government department or an attached department or autonomous bodies/corporations, etc. based on open competition, and that right could not be exercised unless the process of appointment was transparent, fair, just and free from any complaint as to its transparency and fairness.

The bench observed that the contention of the provincial law officer that the STBB chairman was a cadre post and only cadre officers could be appointed as the textbook board chairman was meaningless for the reason that the candidate's qualifications and ability were not assessed in accordance with the law while making appointment on the subject post.

The high court observed that the post was to be filled by the Sindh government under the Sindh Government Rules of Business 1986 read with the Rule 4 of the 1970 ordinance, and hence, prima facie the post could not be construed to be a cadre post.

The SHC observed that the Sindh government was competent to appoint the STBB chairman and its members for three years and shall also be eligible for reappointment for one or more such terms, however, that was subject to the ratio of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court.

The bench also observed that the government was required to fill the post in terms of the Section 4 of the ordinance by inviting applications from aspirant candidates having qualification and experience of the subject post and provincial government officials could participate for appointment on the subject post as per their qualification and experience.

The high court observed that an appointment, whether permanent or contractual, made against a public post without issuing advertisements in newspapers for ensuring competition amongst the eligible candidates would certainly be illegal.