FCC upholds merit-based public appointments

FCC upholds merit-based public appointments

The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has reaffirmed that appointments to key public positions must follow constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, merit, and institutional integrity. The court ruled that authorities cannot make such appointments based on undisclosed factors or by ignoring established selection procedures.

The decision came as the FCC upheld a Peshawar High Court ruling that had nullified the appointment of a petitioner as Chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE), Bannu.

In a 12-page judgment authored by Justice Rozi Khan Barrech, the court emphasized that public officials must exercise their powers in a transparent and lawful manner. The judgment stated that public administration derives its legitimacy not only from legal authority but also from the fair and accountable use of that authority.

Reacting to the verdict,advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii praised the court’s stance, saying that appointments to important public offices, including superior court judges, should strictly adhere to constitutional standards of merit, transparency, and fairness. He added that established mechanisms, such as judicial commissions, must not become mere formalities.

Jaferii also described the ruling as a significant precedent that could influence future legal challenges involving the 26th and 27th constitutional amendments.

A three-member FCC bench headed by Justice Hasan Azhar Rizvi heard the case.

According to the judgment, the government formed a Search and Scrutiny Committee on February 8, 2021, after advertising the BISE Bannu chairman position. The committee reviewed shortlisted candidates and recommended three names to the chief minister.

However, the court found that officials later altered the original summary, which had already passed through the administrative process. They made the changes without fresh committee deliberations, recorded reasons, or any lawful justification, leading the court to question the transparency and legality of the appointment process.