NADRA vs.

Jawad Khan, Ghulam Saddiq, Amjad Ali

Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction)
Civil Petition No. 596 to 598 of 2021
Judgement of 08.05.2023 – Released 31.07.2023

STYLE:
National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) through its Chairman, Islamabad and
others (Petitioner) versus Jawad Kham, Ghulam Saddiq, and Amjad Ali (Respondents)
Civil Petition No. 596 to 598 of 2021; Against Judgment dated 01.12.2020 passed by the
Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza), Swat in W.P.Nos.1043-M to 1045-M/2018
In the Supreme Court of Pakistan (Appellate Jurisdiction)

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
1. The Civil Petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the petitioners before the Supreme
Court of Pakistan.
2. The case originated in the Peshawar High Court, where the respondents had filed Writ
Petitions (W.P. Nos. 1043-M to 1045-M/2018) against the National Database and
Registration Authority (NADRA).
3. The respondents applied for the CSE posts, underwent the recruitment process, and
qualified the test and interview. However, they were appointed as Data Entry Operators
(DEOs) on daily wages basis for a period of one month on job training, instead of being
appointed to the CSE positions they had applied for.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed Writ Petitions in the Peshawar High Court.
5. The Peshawar High Court, after hearing the arguments, allowed the Writ Petitions with
certain directions to NADRA. The High Court directed NADRA to treat the respondents
at par with a petitioner in another case (W.P. No. 549-M/2012) and appoint them to the
CSE posts with effect from the date from which the petitioner in W.P. No. 549-M/2012
was ordered to be appointed.
6. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, NADRA filed Civil Petitions for leave
to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
7. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Peshawar High Court and
dismissed the petitions seeking leave to appeal. The respondents' appointment as CSEs
was ordered with effect from the relevant date, as specified in the High Court's judgment.

ISSUE:
The issue before the court is whether the respondents, who were appointed as Data Entry
Operators (DEOs) instead of Customer Service Executives (CSEs) despite qualifying for the
CSE position, can seek relief through writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution
based on the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel.

RULE:
The court refers to the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel to
analyze the situation. Legitimate expectation refers to a person's reasonable expectation of being
treated in a certain way by administrative authorities based on a promise, assurance, practice, or
policy made by the government or a public authority. Promissory estoppel, on the other hand,
arises when one party makes a clear and unequivocal promise to another, who relies on that
promise to his subsequent disadvantage, and the promisor cannot go back on the promise.

ANALYSIS:
The respondents applied for the position of CSE and qualified for the test and interview,
but they were appointed as DEOs without any valid reason. The court finds that this violates the
terms and conditions of the recruitment process for CSEs. The respondents legitimately expected
their appointment to the CSE position based on their qualifications and the successful completion
of one month of on-job training. The court analyzes the doctrine of legitimate expectation and
promissory estoppel in the context of the case. It concludes that the respondents had a reasonable
expectation of being appointed to the advertised CSE posts based on their qualifications and the
promises made during the recruitment process. The court further observes that the principles of
equity and fairness necessitate holding NADRA accountable for not fulfilling its promise to
appoint the respondents as CSEs.
CONCLUSION:
The court upholds the decision of the High Court and dismisses the petitions seeking
leave to appeal. It confirms that the respondents can rely on the doctrines of legitimate
expectation and promissory estoppel to seek relief through writ jurisdiction. The court finds no
irregularity or perversity in the High Court's judgment, and thus, the petitions are refused. The
respondents' appointment as CSEs is ordered with effect from the date from which the petitioner
in a similar case was appointed to the CSE position.

COMPRESSED LINKEDIN SUMMARY

A recent landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of Pakistan delved into crucial aspects of
employment rights within the domain of public administration. The case in question centered on
the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and pertained to the appointment
process for Customer Service Executive (CSE) positions. The respondents, who had applied for
the CSE posts and successfully completed the stipulated tests and interviews, were, however,
appointed as Data Entry Operators (DEOs) instead. Upon thorough examination of the case, the
Court delved into the doctrines of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel to assess their
applicability. The Court acknowledged the paramount importance of adhering to advertised job
criteria and treating candidates equitably during the appointment process. In light of the evidence
presented, the Court concluded that the respondents had legitimate expectations of being
appointed to the advertised CSE positions, given their qualifications and successful completion
of the recruitment process. The doctrine of legitimate expectation posits that individuals may
reasonably expect to be treated in a certain manner by administrative authorities due to
assurances, promises, practices, or policies issued by the government or public authorities. In this
context, the respondents had a justifiable expectation of being appointed as CSEs based on the
promises and representations made during the recruitment process. Moreover, the doctrine of
promissory estoppel came into play as it was evident that the respondents had suffered a
disadvantage due to the non-fulfillment of the promise made during the recruitment process. The
Court upheld the principle of fairness and deemed it essential to protect the legitimate
expectations of individuals during the employment selection process, particularly in cases where
they have qualified for the position and acted upon the representations made by the hiring
authority. This landmark judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fairness
and safeguarding the rights of employees in the public sector.