IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN  
 
 
Civil Appeals No. 77-78 of 2015 
(Against the judgment dated 16.12.2014 passed by the  
Peshawar High Court in WP No.1255-P/2014) 
 
 
Professor Dr. Razia Sultana  
Govt. of K.P. thr. Chief Secretary, Peshawar etc  
 (C.A.No.77/15) 
(C.A.No.78/15) 
 
…Appellants 
 
  
Versus 
  
 
  
Professor Dr. Ghazala Yasmeen Nizam etc.  
 
 (C.A.No.77/15) 
(C.A.No.78/15) 
 
Respondents 
 
 
 
For the Appellant 
(in CA 77/15) 
 
(in CA 78/15) 
: 
Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Sr. ASC.  
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR. 
 
Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. A.G. KPK 
 
 
 
For the Respondent-1 
: 
Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah, ASC  
(In both cases) 
 
 
Applicants in  
CMA 1009/15 
 
 
Both in person. 
 
 
On Court Notice: 
 
Ms. Farah Hamid, Secretary, HED, KPK 
Mr. Hamid Ali, SO 
 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
03.03.2016 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
Khilji Arif Hussain, J. These two appeals are arising out 
of judgment dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar whereby the learned High Court set-aside the order dated 
1.4.2014 passed by the Government of KPK and notification dated 
7.4.2014 while declaring as without lawful authority. The matter was 
CAs 77 & 78 of 2015 
2 
remanded to the Chief Minister for considering afresh on merits in the 
light of recommendations by the Search Committee, in accordance 
with law, by exercising the discretion judicially after affording 
opportunity to the respondent of being heard.  
2. 
 
The brief facts, necessary for adjudicating the matter, are 
that appellant (in civil appeal No.78 of 2015 i.e. Government of KPK 
through Higher Education Department) advertised the position of Vice 
Chancellor for Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Women University, Peshawar 
in 
the 
leading 
national 
newspapers. 
In 
response 
to 
said 
advertisement, various persons filed their applications including the 
appellant Dr. Razia Sultana and the respondent namely, Professor 
Dr. Ghazala Yasmeen. As averred in the petition, the Higher 
Education Department, KPK prepared a merit list of short listed 
candidates who were going to be interviewed by the Search 
Committee. As per contentions, according to merit list the respondent 
was awarded 52 marks whereas the appellant Dr. Razia Sultana was 
awarded 38 marks. The Search Committee interviewed the short 
listed candidates and finally three candidates including the appellant 
Dr. Razia Sultana and respondent Dr. Ghazala Yasmeen were 
unanimously recommended by the said Search Committee. The 
Higher Education Department, KPK forwarded these three names to 
the Chief Minister wherein the respondent’s name appeared at serial 
No.1 whereas the name of appellant Dr. Razia Sultana appeared at 
serial No.3. The Chief Minister through order dated 1st April, 2014 
recommended the name of appellant Dr. Razia Sultana to be 
appointed as Vice Chancellor and accordingly, after approval of the 
Governor/Chancellor, a notification was issued on 7th April, 2014. 
CAs 77 & 78 of 2015 
3 
The respondent Dr. Ghazala Yasmeen impugned the said notification 
dated 7th April, 2014 through Writ Petition No.1255-P/2014 before 
the learned Peshawar High Court which was allowed in the above 
terms. Hence, these appeals. 
3. 
 
We have heard Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Sr. ASC for 
appellant Dr. Razia Zultana, Mr. Waqar Ahmed Khan, Addl. A.G. for 
Government of KPK, Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah, ASC and Mr. 
Waseemuddin Khattak, ASC for respondents.  
4. 
 
The learned counsel for appellants contended that the 
process of appointment of Vice Chancellor was undertaken by the 
authorities concerned in a transparent manner and in this regard 
through public notice, applications were invited from eligible 
candidates to submit their CVs. In the said advertisement, eligibility 
criteria, terms & conditions and evaluation proforma were clearly 
mentioned for the position of Vice Chancellor. In response to said 
advertisement, the University received 20 applications which were 
short listed as per evaluation proforma and after short listing, the 
eligible candidates were called for interview by the Search Committee. 
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the 
marks allocated to the candidates for the purpose of short listing the 
eligible candidates has nothing to do with the interview conducted by 
the Search Committee consisting of highly capable and responsible 
persons. The said Committee after interviewing the candidates as also 
taking into consideration their academic background, professional 
quality and leadership qualities etc., unanimously recommended the 
three names. The Chief Minister, in exercise of his discretion 
recommended the appellant Dr. Razia Sultana which was thereafter 
CAs 77 & 78 of 2015 
4 
approved by the Government/Chancellor under section 12(1) of the 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012. It is contended that the 
discretion 
exercised 
by 
the 
Chief 
Minister 
and 
the 
Government/Chancellor for selecting the name of appellant Dr. Razia 
Sultana was in accordance with law and after taking into 
consideration all the aspects relevant for the position. It is further 
contended that the respondent has failed to place on record any 
malice on the part of the Chief Minister and the Governor/Chancellor 
while selecting the name of appellant Dr. Razia Sultana out of the 
three names as recommended by the Search Committee.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent 
vehemently argued that the respondent secured highest marks as per 
evaluation proforma and accordingly, if for any reason, her name was 
not 
recommended 
by 
the 
Chief 
Minister 
and 
the 
Governor/Chancellor, they ought to have give reasons for the same.  
6. 
 
We have gone through the entire record minutely and 
carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the 
parties. From perusal of record, it appears that respondent Dr. 
Ghazala Yasmeen averred in her memo of petition before the High 
Court that she secured higher marks than appellant Dr. Razia 
Sultana and as such if, for any reasons, the Chancellor/Governor 
had decided not to appoint her, he ought to have interviewed her and 
give reasons for her supersession. In order to appreciate the 
contention raised by the respondent, we have carefully gone through 
the record and found that the contentions of the respondent have no 
basis. The marks were allocated to the candidates on the basis of 
evaluation proforma for the purpose of short listing the candidates 
CAs 77 & 78 of 2015 
5 
who applied for the position of Vice Chancellor. On the basis of these 
marks, the Search Committee, constituted under section 12(2) of the 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, interviewed all the 
fifteen (15) out of twenty (20) candidates. The Search Committee, 
consisting of eminent professionals, has not allocated any marks to 
any candidate as is evident from the minutes of the said Committee. 
The Search Committee, after a lengthy interview consisting of 
questions relating to University administration, professional and 
academic abilities etc. unanimously recommended three names out of 
which the Chancellor/Governor, in exercise of his powers under 
section 12(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, 
appointed the appellant as Vice Chancellor.  
7. 
 
An administrative order is a final disposition of a matter 
before an administrative agency; product of an administrative 
adjudication, such order may be declaratory or it may contain an 
affirmative or negative command, whereas administrative forum while 
deciding rights has to take decisions by giving justiceable reasons of 
the same.   
8. 
 
The role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation 
of power is to assure that the Courts will not intrude into an area 
committed to the other branches of government. 
9. 
 
In a democratic society, to have the final say whether the 
action of each branch is within the constituent grant is of judiciary. 
However, the judicial review of the propriety of administrative 
decision best serves “the public interest” are said to be question–
beginning. The purpose of judicial review are first, to check abuse or 
detournement of such power; second, to ensure to citizens an 
CAs 77 & 78 of 2015 
6 
impartial determination of their disputes with officials; and third, to 
protect them from unauthorized encroachment on their rights and 
interest.  
10. 
 
In the instant matter, absolute power of appointment was 
not given to authorities i.e. the Chancellor/Governor to appoint any 
person of their choice but the Search Committee consisting of 
eminent professionals was constituted who after detailed scrutiny of 
the credentials and length interview of each candidate, recommended 
three names which, as per parawise comments, was not on the basis 
of any preference and the Chancellor/Governor, on the advice of the 
Chief Minister, appointed one candidate out of the three candidates in 
exercise of his powers, as mentioned above. Section 12(1) of the 
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012 gives discretion to the 
Chancellor/Governor to appoint anyone out of the candidates 
recommended by the Search Committee on the advice of C.M. The 
only allegation against the appellant (Dr. Razia Sultana) is that she 
belongs to the constituency of the Chief Minister but without any 
supporting material, this cannot be termed as an act of mala fide.    
11. 
 
Before we conclude, we may mention here that the 
principle laid down in the case of Munir Hussain Bhatti vs. Federation 
of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 407), is not attracted to the facts of these 
appeals as per the 19th Constitutional Amendment, Parliamentary 
Committee has to provide the reasons in case the nomination of the 
Judicial Commission is not accepted by them. Likewise, in the case of 
Muhammad Yasin vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132), 
appointment of the person was declared unlawful as he was lacking 
CAs 77 & 78 of 2015 
7 
the required qualification and his name for appointment, in the first 
summary, was also declined by the Prime Minister.   
12. 
 
In the case of Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Travels Shop 
Pvt. Ltd. (PLD 2014 SC 1), while dealing with allocation of Hajj quota 
to Hajj Group Operators held that it is not the function of the High 
Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to 
interfere in policy making domain of the Executive. In the case of 
Executive District Officer (Revenue) vs. Ijaz Hussain (2011 SCMR 
1864), the order of High Court was set-aside whereby the High Court 
directed that the marks for interview should not exceed 25% of the 
total marks of selection, held that the Court can neither assume the 
role of a policy maker nor that of a law maker.    
13. 
 
In the foregoing circumstances, the appeals are allowed. 
The impugned judgment dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Division 
Bench of the learned Peshawar High Court is set-aside.                    
14. 
 
These are the reasons of our short order of even date i.e. 
3.3.2016.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
      Judge 
 
 
      Judge  
Islamabad 
03.03.2016 
A.Rehman 
 
Approved for reporting 
 
