The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled on Thursday that appointments to important public offices must demonstrably conform to constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, institutional integrity, and merit-based governance.
Judgment Details
In a 12-page judgment authored by Justice Rozi Khan Barrech, the court stated that public authority cannot be exercised on undisclosed considerations, nor can structured procedures be reduced to empty formalities. The legitimacy of public administration depends not merely on the existence of power, but on the disciplined and transparent exercise of that power in accordance with law.
The judgment upheld the Peshawar High Court's decision that set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) in Bannu.
Case Background
A three-judge panel of the FCC, led by Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi, heard the matter. The record showed that after advertising the post of Chairman, BISE Bannu, the government constituted a Search and Scrutiny Committee on February 8, 2021, to evaluate candidates and recommend three names in accordance with the Terms of Reference.
The committee examined shortlisted candidates and forwarded three names for consideration by the chief minister. However, the original summary, which was duly processed through the administrative hierarchy, was subsequently altered without any fresh deliberation by the committee, without recorded reasons, and without lawful justification apparent from the record.
The petitioner, who was not among the candidates recommended by the committee, was later inserted in the summary dated January 28, 2025, and ultimately appointed by the competent authority through notification on May 13, 2025.
Legal Principles
The court said that the doctrine of pleasure, in its constitutional and administrative sense, does not confer an unfettered license upon the executive to act in disregard of self-imposed procedural discipline. While the executive may appoint and remove public functionaries subject to law, the exercise of such power remains subject to the rule of law and the constitutional obligation to act fairly and rationally. The doctrine of pleasure cannot be used as a shield for arbitrariness, nor can it override an institutional process already adopted by the competent authority to ensure integrity in selection.
The court emphasized that where the executive itself has structured the appointment process through a notified procedure and a search and scrutiny committee, the discretionary power under the Act cannot be exercised in disregard of the prescribed mechanism or in a manner that undermines institutional integrity. Public appointments are not to be made on subjective preference or undisclosed considerations, but through a process that reflects merit, accountability, and due application of mind.
Seven Instruments of Administrative Justice
The court stated that the principle of seven instruments of administrative justice—legality, fairness, transparency, reasoned decision-making, proportionality, non-arbitrariness, and accountability—must govern the exercise of the Controlling Authority's powers under the Act of 1990.
It is by now well settled that where public power is exercised through administrative discretion, such discretion must operate within recognizable legal limits. The seven instruments of power in administrative governance are not mere aspirational ideals but enforceable standards which lend legitimacy to state action. In the field of public appointments, these principles assume heightened significance because the process concerns not private preference but public trust.
The present matter is a classic illustration of why structured procedures must be respected, particularly where the State has itself chosen to institutionalize the selection process through a formal committee mechanism.
Reactions
Commenting on the FCC judgment, advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii expressed wholehearted agreement that appointments to important public offices, such as those of superior court judges, must demonstrably conform to constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, and institutional integrity, and be merit-based. He noted that such appointments cannot be exercised on undisclosed considerations, nor can structured procedures such as the judicial commission be reduced to empty formalities.
Jaferii also welcomed the FCC judgment, stating that when the tide turns, it will be a fit precedent for the unwinding of the 26th and 27th amendment courts.
