Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.4397 of 2021

Dr. Shahid Mehmood VERSUS Chairman PPSC etc.

JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing: 26.01.2023
Petitioner by: Ch. Sohail Akhtar Alkra, Advocate.
Respondent-1 by: Rai Mazhar Hussain Kharal, AAG with Ijaz Akbar, Deputy
Director PPSC.
Respondent-3-7 by: M/s A.R. Aurangzeb & Ahmad Rizwan Khan, Advocates.

SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J.– The instant writ petition

under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan 1973, has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayer:-

“It is humbly prayed that by accepting this Writ Petition,

the order dated 04.05.2021 passed by respondent No.1
may kindly be set aside being illegal, void and
appointment/recommendation for promotion of
respondent No.3 to 7 may kindly be set aside and the
respondent No.1 may graciously be directed to
reconstitute any independent/impartial interview penal
according to the regulation No.52 of PPSC Regulations
2016 by cancelling the earlier procedure done by
interview penal consisting of partial interview penal
members, in the interest of justice.”

2. Brief facts relevant for decision of the instant petition are that
the petitioner having applied for the post of Assistant Professor,
Orthopedic Surgery, was called for interview by a panel consisting
of four (4) members, and after the interview he was hopeful to be
selected, but he was astonished to know that in the final list his
name was at serial No.7 only for the reason that out of four
members of interview panel, two persons namely Professor Dr.
Kamran Salick and Professor Dr. Khalil Ahmad Gill, who were
retired Orthopedic Surgeons, are closely related to the candidates
selected promoted by PPSC interview panel. According to the
petitioner, candidate at serial No.1 remained a trainee as well as
W.P. No.4397/2021 2

junior to Professor Dr. Kamran Salick in the same ward, whereas

his father namely Dr. Ghulam Haider Qaisrani (Retired Professor)
also remained posted with him for a long period. Similarly, father
of the candidate at serial No.2 namely Dr. Hamid Qayyum also
being a retired professor Orthopedic Surgeon has close relations
with both the said members of interview panel. Likewise, the
candidate at serial No.5 namely Dr. Kashif Siddique also remained
a trainee as well junior to Professor Dr. Kamran Salick in the same
ward for a long period, whereas the 3rd candidate Dr. Sherafghan
has been selected on the basis of his close relationship with the
D.G. FIA. In view of such relations members of the interview panel
having sympathy with the said candidates extended them favour
while ignoring the petitioner, despite the fact that he was senior to
them and has been working as Assistant Professor (Ad hoc) for the
last about four (4) years.

3. The petitioner submitted that except for candidate falling at

serial No.4 namely Dr. Basharat Manzoor all others are much
junior to him, but all of them have been extended favour only on
the basis of personal relations, and the petitioner has been ignored
as mentioned above. The petitioner challenged the vires of
formation of interview panel by filing Writ Petition No.271/2021,
which was disposed of vide order dated 10.03.2021 with the
direction to respondent No.1 to treat it as representation on behalf
of the petitioner and decide whether interview panel was
constituted in terms of Regulation No.52 of the PPSC Regulations,
2016 strictly in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner and
all concerned through a speaking order, within a period of thirty
days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
However, after hearing the petitioner and all concerned instead of
rejecting or accepting his representation, it was disposed of with
mala fide intention on 08.04.2021, without deciding the basic point
regarding constitution of interview panel.
W.P. No.4397/2021 3

4. In the above background the petitioner has filed the instant

petition assailing the order dated 08.04.2021 on the ground that it
has been passed by respondent No.1 without taking into
consideration the basic issue regarding constitution and as such the
same is illegal, void and liable to be set aside.

5. In response to notice respondent No.1 filed report and

parawise comments stating that in compliance with the order dated
10.03.2021 passed in Writ Petition No.271/2021 the petitioner was
heard and merit list was examined in the light of Regulation No.54
of PPSC Regulations 2016, with a view to redress his grievance.
However, it was found that even after disregard/exclusion of marks
given by the advisor namely Dr. Kamran Salick to the two
recommended candidates namely, Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif
Siddique are excluded, there would be no effect on the merit list.

6. Respondents No.3 to 7 also filed a reply to the petition

stating that they had no information regarding the members of
interview panel before the interview and that except for being
trainees they have no relations with any member of the panel. They
submitted that no one can be held to be disentitled to compete the
process of selection by the PPSC merely on the basis of being a
trainee of a member of the interview panel, as every professor
provides training to so many persons and relation between them can
be said to be that of teacher and student and not of close associate.
According to them, process of selection was purely based on merit,
but the petitioner having failed to qualify the criteria of Punjab
Public Service Commission has challenged the selection with ill
will motive. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that
except for one selected candidate, he was senior to all others, but
has been ignored due to their relation with the members of
interview panel, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that an
ad hoc appointment does not confer any right. Reliance is placed on
the cases of Mrs. Naila Khalid vs. Pakistan through Secretary
Defence and others (PLD 2003 SC 420) and Pakistan
W.P. No.4397/2021 4

Telecommunication Company Ltd. vs. Muhammad Samiullah (2021

SCMR 998).

7. Arguments heard. Record perused.

8. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.04.2021, on

the ground that his representation has been disposed of without
deciding the main issue as to whether constitution of interview
panel was in accordance with law? According to the petitioner,
selection of respondents No.3 to 7 on the basis of interviews
conducted by an unconstitutional panel is illegal, void and is not
maintainable under the law. In order to appreciate the contention of
the petitioner, it is necessary to go through Regulation No.52 of the
Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016 dealing with
the constitution of a panel/commission for conducting interviews of
the candidates, which reads as under:-

“When a near relative or a close associate or an immediate

subordinate of a Presiding Member/Member(s) of the
Commission or of an Advisor or Departmental Representative is
being interviewed, the concerned Presiding Member/Member(s)
or the Advisor(s) or Departmental Representative shall not be
allowed to be present and to participate in the proceedings of the
interview of that candidate. Presiding Member of the Interview
Committee shall clarify this aspect to Advisor(s) and
Departmental Representative before the commencement of the
interview, provided that where a candidate is a near relative or a
close associate or an immediate subordinate of the Presiding
Member/Member(s), in such case(s) the Presiding
Member/Member(s) shall inform the Chairman to nominate
another Presiding Member/ Member(s) to interview such
candidate(s).”

In view of the aforesaid provisions if any candidate is a “near

relative”, “close associate” or “immediate subordinate” of any
Presiding Member/Member(s), the said member(s) shall not be
allowed to participate in the proceedings of interview of that
candidate and the said member(s) shall inform the Chairman to
nominate some other member(s) to interview such candidate. In the
circumstances, it is necessary to go through the
W.P. No.4397/2021 5

meanings/definitions of “near relative”, “close associate” and

“immediate subordinate”.

9. It is deemed necessary to mention here that before passing

the impugned order dated 04.05.2021 respondent No.1, called upon
both the advisors of the interview panel namely, Professor
Dr. Kamran Salick and Professor Dr. Khalil Ahmad Gill with a
view to ask about their relationship with the candidates namely, Dr.
Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique. In response thereto,
Professor Dr. Kamran Salick appeared before respondent No.1 and
submitted in writing that neither Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif
Siddique were his relatives nor were they working under him. He,
however, submitted that both of them were his post graduate
trainees from 2013 to 2018 and if this comes into the definition of
“close associate” then they can be considered close associates.
Professor Dr. Khalil Ahmad Gill submitted in writing that none of
the said candidates i.e. Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique,
was his relative, associate or subordinate.

10. As regards “near relative”, in view of „social security guide‟,

a near relative is a member of the immediate family, or an adopted
child, whereas, in view of the definition of „Law Insider‟ near
relatives means the husband, wife, father, mother, sons, daughters,
and brothers and sisters born of the same parents. However, as per
Black‟s Law Dictionary, relative means “A person connected with
another by blood or affinity; a person who is kin with another”.

11. Close associate has been defined in different words, for

example:-

1. As per definition of Law Insider, “close associate” means

someone with whom you are in close regular contact over
a period of time who is more than an acquaintance. It
may be a friend, a colleague, a business associate or
someone you know through general social contacts. It is
someone a reasonable member of the public would think
you might be prepared to favour/disadvantage.
2. As per definition of NSW Police Force, a “close
associate” is any person involved in a security business
W.P. No.4397/2021 6

who can significantly influence its conduct or operation

due to their personal influence, company position or
financial interest.
3. As per Oxford Learners Dictionaries, a person that you
work with, do business with or spend a lot of time with
 business associates
 a close political associate of
4. The term "close associate" means:- (a) in relation to an
individual means:
(i) his spouse;
(ii) any child or step-child, natural or adopted, under the
age of 18 years of the individual or of his spouse
(together with (a)(i) above, the "family interests");
5. A “close associate” means a person that you work with,
do business with or spend a lot of time with.
6. A close associate means a natural person who is closely
connected to a politically exposed person, either socially
or professionally.
7. A close associate of a Senior Foreign Political Figure"
shall mean a person who is widely and publicly known
internationally to maintain an unusually close
relationship with the Senior Foreign Political Figure, and
includes a person who is in a position to conduct
substantial domestic and international financial
transactions on behalf of the Senior Foreign Political
Figure.
8. A close associate means someone with whom you are in
close regular contact over a period of time who is more
than an acquaintance. It may be a friend, a colleague, a
business associate or someone you know through general
social contacts. It is someone a reasonable member of the
public would think you might be prepared to
favour/disadvantage.
9. Relatives and Close Associates sometimes referred to as
„PEPs by association‟ are a type of politically exposed
person who shares a family or friendship connection to a
PEP. As outlined in FATF guidance, that connection may
be a direct family relation or a connection through
marriage (or civil partnership). Alternatively, it may be a
social or professional association. The list of people who
may qualify as RCAs includes:
a. Spouses and partners
b. Parents Children
W.P. No.4397/2021 7

c. Siblings
d. Uncles, aunts, cousins
e. Spouses/parents of children
f. Close friends
g. Legal advisors
h. Business associates
RCAs may also be joint beneficial owners of an entity in
which a PEP has an interest, or may be the sole beneficial
owners of an entity set up for the benefit of a PEP.

12. So far as the word “immediate subordinate”, is concerned, it

means having a lower or less important position in role and status
to those of the group. The subordination has further been explained
in the following manner:-

1. As per Black‟s Law Dictionary, subordinate means, “Placed

in or belonging to a lower rank, class, or position” and
“subject to another‟s authority or control”.
2. A group of persons or things organized into successive ranks
or grades with each level subordinate to the one above: a
career spent moving up through the military hierarchy.
3. Categorization or arrangement of a group of people or things
into such ranks or grades: classification by hierarchy;
discounting the effects of hierarchy.
4. A system of persons or things arranged in a graded order.

13. The rationale behind the use of terms near relative, close
associate, immediate subordinate in Regulation No. 52 is that such
relationship must manifest prejudice, in favour or against any
candidate, but having gone through the petition, comments filed by
respondent No.1, reply submitted on behalf of the other respondents
as well as the aforesaid definitions, it cannot be said by any stretch
of imagination that respondents No.3 to 7 were “near relatives”,
“close associates” or “immediate subordinates” to the advisors
namely, Professor Dr. Kamran Salick and Professor Dr. Khalil
Ahmad Gill, as alleged by the petitioner. The only fact that the
candidates namely Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique, were
admittedly postgraduate trainees of Advisor Professor Dr. Kamran
W.P. No.4397/2021 8

Salick from 2013 to 2018 also does not make out a case that there
was such a relation which can be made basis for such a favour, A
trainee is just like a student and there might be some other trainees
in the candidates appeared for interview. Therefore, it can safely be
concluded that no violation of Regulation No. 52 of PPSC
Regulations-2016 has occurred.

14. The contention of the petitioner that he was Assistant

Professor (Ad hoc) and senior than all other selected candidates
except for one, but has been ignored due to the relations of the
candidates namely, Dr. Imran Haider and Dr. Kashif Siddique with
the advisors namely Professor Dr. Kamran Salick and Professor
Dr. Khalil Ahmad Gill, lacks weight for the reason that an ad hoc
employment does not confer any right. Reliance in this regard can
be placed on the case of Pakistan Telecommunication (supra),
wherein it has been held as under:-

“Another distinction that we would like to draw through

this judgment for the purposes of clarity is between an
"ad hoe" or temporary employee, a contract employee
and a permanent employee. The term temporary suggests
a post which has been. temporarily created for a definite
period of time or for a certain purpose/project, and upon
the completion of that project, services of the temporary
employee appointed in it are accordingly terminated. On
the other hand, an ad hoc employee is also a temporary
employee who is appointed for an existing post for a
short period of time, or for a specific purpose, in lieu of
the person eligible for that post and upon the appointment
of that eligible regular appointee, or with the lapse of
time, the ad hoc employee is automatically relieved. It is
pertinent to note that an ad hoc, temporary or contractual
appointment does not create any vested right of
regularization in favour of the appointee.”

In this regard reference can also be made to the case of Naila

Khalid (supra).

15. It is also noticed that in case the marks given by the advisor
Dr. Kamran Salick to the two recommended candidates namely
Dr. Imran Haider & Dr. Kashif Siddique are excluding/disregarding
 W.P. No.4397/2021 9

from the merit list in the light of Regulation No.54 of PPSC

Regulations-2016, in order to remove all kinds of doubt and to
satisfy the petitioner, even then there would be no effect on the
merit list.

16. Even otherwise, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199

of the Constitution is limited to the extent of ensuring that state
functionaries did what they were required by law to do and refrain
from doing what they were prohibited by law to do and unless an
act or omission of a state functionary fell within the said parameters
it cannot be interfered with and such interference would constitute
this Court overstepping its jurisdiction and entering the domain of
the executive which is contrary to the concept of trichotomy of
powers as per the scheme of the Constitution. Reliance in this
regard can be placed on the case of Secretary Punjab Public
Service Commission, Lahore and others vs. Aamir Hayat and
others (2019 SCMR 124).

17. For what has been discussed above, the petitioner has not
been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned
order, therefore, this petition having no merit is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.

(Safdar Saleem Shahid)

Judge
Approved for reporting

Judge
Saleh