The Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent judgment declared promotion given to an officer of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly for the third time in violation of policy as a case of ‘cronyism’ and upheld a verdict of Peshawar High Court in this regard.

A three-member bench of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmad last month turned down leave to appeal petition filed by Director (automation and IT) of the provincial assembly, Attaullah Khan, who had challenged the judgment delivered by the high court on Nov 13, 2018.

A high court bench comprising Justice Roohul Amin Khan and Justice Qalandar Ali Khan had allowed a petition filed by a lawyer, Ali Azim Afridi, and had set aside a notification issued by the then speaker on March 16, 2018, of promotion of Attaullah from BPS-20 to BPS-21 (personal) by declaring it void and illegal.

“The provincial assembly is the supreme lawmaking body of the province and if the lawmakers don’t follow the law or policy framed by itself, how can it compel people to obey the said mandate,” the Supreme Court bench ruled.

The bench has further ruled: “The case of the petitioner seems to be a case of cronyism. Cronyism is the practice of partiality in awarding jobs/appointments and other advantages to friends, trusted colleagues or dear ones especially in politics and between politicians and supportive organisations.”

“This also includes appointing cronies to positions of authority regardless of their qualification/merit and the same is contrary to meritocracy in which appointments are made purely on qualification. This aspect of wrongdoing has to be taken care of with iron hands to avoid sensation and chaos amongst the masses,” the court observed.

The counsel for the petitioner Attaullah Khan contended that that the respondent (Ali Azim Afridi) was not an aggrieved person and none of his rights were violated. He added that the petitioner was upgraded on recommendation of the finance committee after following all codal formalities.

He stated that as the petitioner had no service structure and channel of promotion, therefore, based on his previous services he was rightly promoted to BPS-21. He added that the high court wrongly issued writ of quo warranto against his client.

Turning down his arguments, the SC bench observed that the writ of quo warranto was issued by the court to judicially review such situation against a person when he assumed an office on which he had no entitlement.

The bench ruled that quo warranto was an effective measure to prevent people from taking over public offices who do not qualify for the same. It was added that there was no prohibition in law as to who could file the writ of quo warranto.

“The present case is classic example where this writ was rightly issued by the high court,” the bench ruled.

The petitioner was appointed as a local area network administrator in BPS-18 on Jan 13, 1994 in the provincial assembly. Subsequently, through an order on May 5, 2006, the said post was upgraded from BPS-18 to BPS-19 and was re-designated as director automation and information technology and the petitioner was also upgraded to NPS-19 on June 10, 2006.

On Nov 23, 2009, the post of director automation and IT was once again upgraded from BPS-19 to BPS-20 as personal to the petitioner and through an order on Dec 7, 2009, he was promoted to the said upgraded post. Subsequently, on March 16, 2018, the post was upgraded to BPS-21 and the petitioner was also promoted on March 21, 2018.

The SC observed that it was an admitted fact that the said post was upgraded thrice. It was added that the provincial assembly promulgated the upgradation policy through a notification on Aug 29, 2011 for its employees and section 2 of that policy specifically stated that personal upgradation shall be made once during the whole service period.

“The three consecutive upgradations given to the petitioner are clearly in violation of the said policy,” the bench ruled.

Even the Peshawar High Court in its judgment had expressed displeasure over the role of the then speaker of the assembly in giving promotion to the present petitioner, who was a respondent before the high court.

“This is yet another example of such reckless exercise of authority and powers by a person, who claims to be ‘custodian’ of the top legislative organ of the province,” the high court bench had ruled.

“Obviously, this court cannot shut its eyes to such arbitrary exercise of powers and authority by a person in his position, in utter violation of law/rules and judgments of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan,” it had added.

Published in Dawn, September 27th, 2021