Lahore High Court Declares SMEDA CEO Appointment Illegal – 2024 PLC (CS) 853
SMEDA کے CEO
کی تقرری غیر قانونی قرار
– لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ (2024 PLC (CS) 853)
پس منظر:
قانونی نکات:
عدالت کا فیصلہ:
نتیجہ:
Must read judgement
Citation Name : 2024 PLC(CS) 853 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : HASHIM RAZA
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 6, 7(xxvii), 12, 13 & 14---SMEDA Employees Service Rules 2015, Rr. 4(1) & 8---SMEDA Employees Performance, Promotion and Recruitment Regulations, 2016, Regln. 16---Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (SMEDA), appointment of---Fitness, and propriety---Scope---Extension of the SMEDA's CEO---Petitioner, on the expiry of his term as Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of (SMEDA), invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court challenging the appointment of private respondent as the new CEO of SMEDA---Contention of the petitioner was that the Federal Government had appointed (private) respondent as CEO of SMEDA without following the procedure outlined in the relevant laws---Validity---Provisions of Ss. 12, 13 & 14 of Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority Ordinance, 2002 ('the Ordinance 2002')stipulate that Federal Government shall appoint Chief Executive Officer while determining relevant credentials (terms and conditions, duration, qualification and disqualification)---However in terms of R. 4(1) of the SMEDA (Employees Service) Rules, 2015 ('the Rules 2015'), the Federal Government, subject to said provisions (of Ss. 12, 13 & 14 of the Ordinance, 2002), shall appoint the CEO on the recommendation of the SMEDA Board as per powers and functions provided to it (Board) in S. 7 (xxxvii) of the Ordinance, 2002---While R. 8 of the Rules, 2015 prescribes education and experience for selection of CEO, Regln. 16 of SMEDA Employees Performance, Promotion and Recruitment Regulations, 2016 ('the Regulations, 2016'), elaborates the procedure to be followed for naming the CEO---In the present case, SMEDA had no Board in accordance with S. 6 of the Ordinance, 2002 because the six private members had not been nominated; resultantly, the Board made no recommendations and the Federal Government appointed the (private) respondent without them---Purpose of regulating the appointment process of CEOs in public sector companies is to promote merit and good governance and eschew favoritism and nepotism---Sections 7(xxxvii), 12, 13 & 14 of the Ordinance, 2002 and R.4(1) of the Rules, 2015 and Regulation 16 of the Regulations, 2016 are mandatory---Board has an important role in appointing a CEO and its recommendations are vital---Impugned Notification (of appointing respondent as CEO) gave the impression that it was a routine transfer of an officer (private respondent) awaiting posting in the Establishment Division to SMEDA as its CEO; moreover, it did not mention his tenure and said the transfer/appointment was "with immediate effect and until further orders", whereas as per S. 12(2) of the Ordinance 2002, the CEO's appointment had to be for three years---When the law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner and not otherwise---SMEDA was without a functional Board - and a CEO - which was likely to impact its operations---High Court set-aside impugned notification and declared the appointment of the private respondent as the CEO of SMEDA to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect---Federal Government (respondent) was directed to take immediate steps to fill the vacancies on the Board, following which it shall proceed for the appointment of the CEO---Constitutional petition, was disposed of accordingly.