 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN  
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.216-Q of 2017 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 08.11.2017 
passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in 
Constitution Petition No.721 of 2015.) 
 
Jahanzaib Malik  
 
 
 
 
      … Petitioner 
 
VERSUS  
 
Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, through its 
Chairman Board of Directors and others  
 … Respondents 
  
 
For the petitioner: 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Sr. ASC. 
 
For respondents No.1&2: 
Mr. Ayaz Swati, Addl. A.G. 
 
For respondent No.3:  
N.R. (Not represented) 
 
 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
04.01.2018 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J. – The petitioner seeks leave to 
appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court 
of Balochistan dated 08.11.2017. Through the impugned judgment, 
Constitutional Petition No.721 of 2015 filed by Respondent No.3 
was partly allowed and the order dated 08.04.2015 and notification 
dated 29.08.2017 issued by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were set 
aside. 
2. 
 
The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.3 
Balochistan Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (“BPPRA”) 
invited applications for appointment against a post of Director 
C.P.No.216-Q/2017. 
 
2 
(Monitoring and Evaluation). The qualification for the said post as 
advertised, was Masters Degree in Social Sciences and 5 years 
experience in the relevant field. The last date for submission of 
applications was 28.08.2014. The petitioner and Respondent No.3 
applied for the said post. After a test conducted by NTS and 
interviews taken by a Committee of senior officers, respondent No.3 
was appointed against the said post through a contract dated 
08.04.2015, for a period of 2 years. On expiry of the said 2 years 
period, during pendency of Constitutional Petition before the High 
Court, the petitioner was granted extension for another period of 2 
years from 08.04.2017 to 08.04.2019.  
3. 
 
Respondent No.3 who was also one of the applicants 
was not appointed. He challenged the appointment of the petitioner 
before the High Court on the ground that he neither possessed the 
requisite qualification nor experience in the relevant field on the 
last date for submission of applications i.e. 28.08.2014. Therefore 
he was not lawfully appointed. The learned High Court came to the 
conclusion that the petitioner did not possess the requisite 
educational qualification when he was appointed against the said 
post. Further, his appointment could not validly be extended in 
view of the fact that the extension notification was issued in 
continuation of the earlier notification. on the basis of which the 
petitioner had been appointed. Despite the fact that Respondent 
No.3 did not challenge the extension notification either by way of 
amendment or through a fresh constitution petition, the High 
C.P.No.216-Q/2017. 
 
3 
Court proceeded to take notice of such development and set aside 
the extension order also. Hence this petition. 
4. 
 
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 
qualification for appointment to the post of Director (Monitoring 
and Evaluation) was a Masters Degree in Social Sciences or 
equivalent and 5 years experience in the relevant field. He submits 
that the petitioner possesses a degree of Masters of Science in 
Electronic Business Management from the University of Warwick, 
UK. It is recognized by the Higher Education Commission of 
Pakistan as equivalent to corresponding Masters of Science Degree 
involving 16 years of schooling in the relevant field from Pakistan. 
He further submits that the petitioner also had a Masters degree in 
Business Administration (MBA) from the Institute of Business 
Administration (IBA), Karachi. He had completed the course work 
in 2014, however the actual degree was issued on 7th of March, 
2015 which was before the employment contract dated 08.04.2015 
was issued in his favour. That being the case, the High Court erred 
in fact in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not 
qualified on the date of his appointment. He further submits that 
the contract of the petitioner was validly extended with effect from 
08.04.2017 by the Competent Authority as per applicable rules on 
the basis of recommendations made by a Selection Committee, 
considering very good performance evaluation reports earned by 
the petitioner from 2015 to 2017.  
5. 
 
Notice had been issued to Respondent No.3. Despite 
service he has not entered appearance. He is therefore, proceeded 
C.P.No.216-Q/2017. 
 
4 
against ex-parte. The learned Additional Advocate General, 
Balochistan has supported the arguments advanced by the learned 
counsel for petitioner. 
6. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 
and carefully examined the record. The petitioner had applied for 
the post of Director (Monitoring and Evaluation) in BPPRA. The last 
date for submission of applications was 28.08.2014. At the time 
when the petitioner filed his application, he mentioned his 
qualification as holding a Masters Degree in Electronic Business 
Management from the University of Warwick, UK and an MBA 
degree from Institute of Business Administration, Karachi. The year 
of completion of degree was mentioned as 2014. 
7. 
 
There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner was at 
the top of the list on the basis of his performance in the test and 
interview. Further, he was selected on the basis of his MBA degree. 
The documents examined by us also indicate that the petitioner 
has completed his degree in January, 2014 with an cumulative 
Grade Point Average (“GPA”) of 3.19. However, the degree was 
formally issued on 7th of March, 2015 for reasons beyond the 
control of the petitioner. The degree itself shows that the petitioner 
had successfully completed the requisite course work and 
examination in the academic year 2014. The transcript issued by 
the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi also verifies the 
fact that the petitioner had completed his degree in January, 2014. 
That being the case, Respondents No.1 and 2 were justified in 
C.P.No.216-Q/2017. 
 
5 
considering the petitioner as duly qualified on the basis of his MBA 
degree from IBA. 
8. 
 
The fact that the degree was formally issued in year 
2015 is not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case of 
much significance. The degree itself shows that the petitioner had 
successfully completed the requisite course work and examination 
in the academic year 2014. This is further substantiated by the 
Transcript of Credit issued by the Institute of Business 
Administration, Karachi which shows that the petitioner had 
completed his degree in January, 2014 with an cumulative GPA of 
3.19. 
9. 
 
In addition, we notice that the 2 years contract of the 
petitioner expired on 08.04.2015. In consequence of which the 
Constitutional Petition as originally filed was rendered infructuous. 
The petitioner was granted a further extension of 2 years vide office 
order dated 29th August, 2017 with effect from 08.04.2017. The 
said office order was not challenged by Respondent No.3 either 
through amendment in the Constitutional Petition or by filing a 
fresh petition. By taking Suo Moto Notice of such extension, the 
High Court appears to have exceeded its jurisdiction for reasons 
which are not legally sustainable. In addition, through the office 
order dated 29th August, 2017, six other officials of Balochistan 
Public Procurement Regulatory Authority had been granted two 
years extension of service. Such employees were neither before the 
High Court nor were their appointments or reappointment orders 
under challenge. Yet without hearing the said persons or 
C.P.No.216-Q/2017. 
 
6 
considering their cases, the High Court proceeded to set aside their 
extensions also, by setting aside office order dated 29.08.2017. This 
is an additional ground for our inability to uphold the judgment of 
the High Court. 
10. 
 
It may be pointed out that the only reason assigned by 
the High Court for setting aside the extension order dated 29th 
August, 2017 is that it is in continuation of the original 
appointment order which had been set aside. We have already held 
that the original appointment order was validly issued. Therefore 
the reasons recorded by the High Court for setting aside the 
extension order automatically pale into insignificance. 
11. 
 
For reasons recorded above, we convert this petition 
into an appeal and allow the same. The impugned judgment of the 
High Court is accordingly set aside. 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE  
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE  
Islamabad, the   
4th January, 2018 
Naveed Ahmad/* 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
