LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has ruled that it is not for the courts to examine the qualification and eligibility criteria in a recruitment process, and it cannot delve deeper into the design and need of the employing institution.

A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Chaudhry Muhammad Iqbal and Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, issued the ruling, allowing an intra-court appeal of Punjab government, challenging a decision of a single bench allowing a writ petition of a candidate for the post of assistant superintendent jail (BS-16).

The candidate, Syed Danish Hussain Shah, had contended before the single bench that he applied for the post in response to an advertisement published by the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC). He appeared in the competitive exam and stood at 13th position among the successful candidates.

Subsequently, appointment letters were issued to the successful candidates, but the respondent (Shah) was denied appointment on the ground that his eyesight was not as per eligibility criteria.

He filed a representation which was rejected by the home department. Later, he filed the petition before the LHC, which was allowed by the single judge on March 4, 2022.

In its decision, the two-judge bench notes that the respondent/candidate, after acceptance of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, filed an application for the post, but could not fulfill the required eligibility criteria.

It says the respondent appeared before a medical board of the Services Hospital, Lahore, that issued a certificate which shows the eyesight of the respondent as 6x6 with glasses.

The bench observed that the medical examination was conducted as required under the Punjab Prisons Service Rules, 2010 and under Rule 1042(c) of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978 the vision of both eyes of a candidate must be 6x6 without glasses.

The judges say the respondent did not challenge the findings of the medical board, but prayed for setting aside the rule 1042(c) through the constitutional petition which amounts to admission on his part regarding the findings and it is settled law that admitted facts need not to be proved.

They note that the single judge, allowing the petition, held that the Rule 1042(C) of the Pakistan Prison Rules, 1978, was ultra vires of Article 18 of the Constitution.

“There is no cavil or cudgel that the right of profession is treated as a fundamental right, but it is subject to such qualification as settled by the law, and every citizen has to follow the commandments of the law in this regard,” rules the division bench.

It maintains that the respondent failed to bring on record that the rule was in violation of Article 18 of the Constitution or hit by any of the conditions settled by the Supreme Court of the country.

It observes that the prerogative of setting the eligibility criteria for a certain post exclusively falls within the domain of the concerned authority/executive and interfering in that domain would amount to committing judicial overreach, which is unwarranted by law.

The matters, including selection criteria and job recruitment, can be best resolved by the institution itself, according to the suitability and requirements of a certain post, it adds.

Allowing the appeal of the government, the two-judge bench also set aside the decision of the single bench.

Published in Dawn, February 5th, 2023