HYDERABAD: Sindh High Court’s Hyderabad circuit bench on Friday set aside a notification dated Jan 4, 2018 of the federal ministry of energy under which Mohammad Imran Mian was appointed chief executive officer (CEO) of the Genco Holding Company Ltd (GHCL).

The order was passed on a constitutional petition filed by Sajan Panhwar, the secretary general of the Wapda Employees Paigham Union. He was represented by Advocate Sajjad Ahmed Chandio.

The bench comprising Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan and Justice Mohammad Saleem Jessar had heard the petition on May 18. It signed and announced the order on Friday.

According to the petitioner, there are four power generation companies — Genco-I (Jamshoro Power Company Ltd), Genco-II (Central Power Generation Company), Genco-III Northern Power Generation Company Limited (NPGCL) and Genco-IV (Lakhra Power Generation Company Limited (LPGCL).

He stated that Mr Mian was appointed the Genco-II finance director at Guddu in 2007 and GHCL chief executive officer in 2016.

Paigham union had challenged the posting made in 2016 with PM’s approval

The counsel argued that as per the GHCL memorandum of association, the public sector company would operate power plants. When the position against which the respondent was to be appointed got advertised, the Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) had served a notice to company on Sept 1, 2016 drawing its attention to Section 27(5a) of the PEC Act of 1975 which required that no person, unless registered as an engineer, could hold any post in any engineering organisation where he had to perform engineering work. The PEC insisted that the GHCL chief executive officer must be a professional engineer because managing power plants was a purely engineering speciality.

The PEC also sent letters to the federal ministries concerned highlighting the issue. The petitioner’s counsel submitted in court that even before appointment of the CEO, a similar letter was sent to the then energy minister but none of the letters were responded to.

The counsel stated GHCL’s two former CEOs were professional engineers and by appointing the respondent CEO Mohammad Imran Mian, who was a chartered accountant, not only the PEC Act was violated but provisions of the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules 2013, which required “only fit and proper” persons to hold such posts, were violated. PEC supported the case of petitioner in its comments but only with regard to requirement in the PEC Act.

The counsel for the respondent CEO and chief human resource and administration official, Haroon Bilal Sharif contended that the business of the respondent was generating electricity through thermal means and he [the CEO] was fully competent for the post as per the Schedule-II made under para-3 of the Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines 2015, setting out the criteria of ‘fit and proper’ person for the post.

He submitted in court that the said appointment was made by prime minister after the federal cabinet’s approval and that the respondent CEO had been running affairs of the GHCL with utmost efficiency. He said other such entities, like Kepco, were also run by non-engineers and in today’s free-market public sector, entities should be allowed to choose the most suitable individuals at their sole discretion as long as they were competent to run businesses efficiently.

The counsel stated that as per the summary sent to the PM in Oct 2016, the name of the respondent CEO was on top of the list, in which two others were professional engineers. The PM approved his name on his own discretion.

The counsel maintained that the respondent CEO had been running affairs of GHCL efficiently and the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge his appointment.

The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Chandio, also alleged that the respondent CEO was directly involved in the affairs of Genco-I (Jamshoro Power Company Ltd), and pointed out that its two units had been closed on account of ill-fated decisions made by him. He pointed out that the respondent CEO was involved in all top-level decision-making of the company that employed hundreds of individuals domiciled within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

The bench observed that this was a case where serious challenges were posed to the appointment of the respondent CEO. This is an admitted fact that the GHCL was previously headed by engineers which compelled the PEC to send a notice even at the time when the qualification criteria was changed to include non-engineers in the July 19, 2016 advertisement.

It said that a close examination of the advertisement showed that the qualification criteria required an applicant to be an engineer and the PEC in its Sept 1, 2016 letter drew attention of the GHCL head that advertisement violated clause 5a of Section-27 of the PEC Act 1975.

The court’s order said: “We accordingly allow this petition, set aside Jan 4, 2018 notification and direct ministry of energy to reinitiate process for appointment of new CEO strictly in compliance of Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules 2013 and Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines 2015.”

The bench hoped this exercise would be completed within 30 days and compliance report would be sent to the additional registrar of this court.

Published in Dawn, May 29th, 2021