Dr. MEHMOOD AYAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Health Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore S

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Dr. MEHMOOD AYAZ VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Health Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore S.8(3)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Administrator of Punjab Human Transplantation Authority ('PHOTA')---Appellant challenged the notification whereby respondent was appointed against the post in question---Validity---Undeniably, under S.8(3) of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2010, the Monitoring Authority was bestowed with the function to appoint an Administrator with consultation with the Government (who was Chief Minister as per the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011), therefore, the recommendations of the Monitoring Authority were to be given due weight and the Government/Chief Minister, if differed with the same, had to provide cogent reasons---Only reason that respondent had better management experience than petitioner could not be made basis to supersede a candidate securing top position after going through a detailed process of interview conducted by the Monitoring Authority---Under the provisions of the Act, 2010, absolute power of appointment of Administrator PHOTA had not been given to the Government i.e. Chief Minister to appoint any person of his choice but the Monitoring Authority consisting of eminent professionals was constituted who after detailed scrutiny of the credentials and lengthy interview of each candidate, recommended three names as per order of merit---Appointment of Administrator PHOTA had been structured to preclude the arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion at the cost of appointments on merit---Reasons provided by the Chief Minister for not appointing the petitioner, who was placed highest on the merit list, were justiciable especially when in the instant case, admittedly no reasons were given by the Chief Minister and the Court could examine them on the touchstone of validity, fairness and compliance with the law, rules and departmental practice---Discretion of the Chief Minister in such regard was not unfettered, unbridled and unregulated and impugned action of the Chief Minster amounted to an illegal, arbitrary, capricious and unbridled exercise of discretion---Discretion when exercised by an authority in an arbitrary manner and against the law, the jurisdiction of the Court to interfere under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, was not barred---Constitution petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Dr. MEHMOOD AYAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Health Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore S — 2024 PLC(CS) 352 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC