DANISH AHMED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis, Islamabad Reglns

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

DANISH AHMED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis, Islamabad Reglns. 3.20, 3.21, 3.22 & 3.23---Probationary employees, rights of---Termination of a probationary employee without a notice or stated reason---Legality---If a probationary employee's termination is not due to misconduct, there is no legal requirement to provide reasons or conduct a formal inquiry---Probationary employees cannot claim the right to a show-cause notice based on the principle of audi alteram partem before termination/discharge from service as this contradicts the very nature of probation period. Probationary service--- Scope--- The fundamental purpose of probation is to assess a new employee's ability and potential to succeed within the organization and to determine if his/her services will benefit the employer---Probation provides a mutual evaluation period, allowing both the employer and employee to decide if continued employment is desired---This understanding of probation, when applied for a reasonable duration, cannot be considered discriminatory---Only upon successful completion of the probation period, deemed satisfactory by both parties, should an employee's service be considered for confirmation. Reglns. 3.20, 3.21, 3.22 & 3.23---Probationary service, termination of---Qualification discrepancies---Probationer, right of---The petitioner was appointed on a one-year probation after advertisement, proper interview, verification of documents, background checks, and police verification---However he received an explanation memo raising concerns about qualification discrepancies and domicile---The petitioner clarified that his qualifications (Bachelor of Commerce and a Diploma in Civil Technology) were disclosed, verified, and suitable for the post---Nonetheless, he was terminated for allegedly lacking the requisite qualification without any extension of the probationary period---He challenged the termination as unlawful, arbitrary, and without due process, seeking reinstatement---Held: Petitioner did not meet the advertised requirement for the post i.e. second class bachelor degree in social sciences and experience, however, he had commerce degree and for that petitioner claimed that it was at par with the social sciences, more particularly the subject of economics was common---This assertion of petitioner could not be accepted in terms of definition of social science, which related to man/woman as a member of society, or of any component part of society, as the State, family or any systematized human institution and or any field of knowledge dealing with human society, as economics, history, sociology, education, politics, ethics, etc.---However, so far as economics as a subject was concerned, that needed to be looked into by respondent department if they found social science degree at par with commerce degree based on the certain subject as the High Court was not in a position to decide the case in favor of the petitioner based on the aforesaid analogy for the reasons that High Court could not act as appellate body over statutory decisions regarding qualification recognition---The authority designated by law held the exclusive power to determine if a qualification met specific requirements---The argument that possessing a similar qualification in commerce or economics automatically made the candidate eligible, even if he did not meet the advertised requirements, was without merits---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. art. 199---Employment---Recruitment---Scope of assessment---Domain of competent authority---Interference of High Court in recruitment matters---Judicial review---Scope---High Court refrains from interfering in recruitment decisions unless tainted by mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of law---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to substituting the authority's assessment with that of Court---Judiciary as the ultimate protector of individual rights and obligations under the Constitution has the authority to mandate the proper formulation of policies to ensure fairness and transparency---However, it is settled law that it is within the domain of the competent authority to prescribe the required qualifications and experience in the recruitment process for any post---The Courts cannot force acceptance or interchange any other qualification equivalent to the specific post with a specific qualification advertised for inviting applications for recruitment or setting the benchmark for promotion of employees to any particular post or grade on attaining any particular length of service---It is crucial to understand that unless explicitly stated in the job advertisement or the recruitment policy, the High Court cannot assume that a higher/minimum/equivalent qualification automatically implies the acquisition of a lower one, or that a candidate with a higher qualification is inherently more suitable than someone meeting the specific requirements advertised or equivalent degree as the High Court's role in recruitment matters is limited---However, it can assess the legality of the recruitment process but cannot substitute its judgment for the employer's regarding design, needs, or selection criteria---The Court should not attempt to compare different degrees, determining the equivalence or suitability of academic qualifications for a particular position---This is a specialized area best handled by the employing institution itself, based on its specific needs and requirements---Courts are not equipped to make such determinations under art. 199 of the Constitution.

DANISH AHMED vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis, Islamabad Reglns — 2025 PLC(CS) 1138 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC