PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has ordered the appointment of a petitioner, Engineer Javed Akhtar, as the member (hydropower) of Pakhtunkhwa Energy Development Organisation (Pedo) by setting aside the decision of the provincial government against his posting despite recommendation by the selection committee.

A bench consisting of Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar and Justice Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah accepted a petition of Engineer Akhtar for declaring illegal the action of the respondents, including the provincial government, of not appointing him as the member (hydropower) of the Pedo executive committee.

The government had declined to appoint him as member of the Pedo’s executive committee claiming that he didn’t fulfil the criteria so prescribed by Pedo (Appointment and Terms and Conditions of Chief Executive and Members) Rules, 2024.

The petitioner’s counsel, Shumail Ahmad Butt, informed the bench that the Pedo had been re-organised in the year 2020 when the new Pedo Act, 2020, was passed.

Accepts plea of top candidate for post

He said that as per the new Act, the management of Pedo vested in an executive committee comprising a chief executive, additional secretary (E&P) and members of finance, renewable energy and hydropower.

“The qualifications for these members are mentioned in Section 9(3) of the new law, whereas Section 9(4) declares that for other terms and conditions, rules would be made,” he said.

Mr Butt said since the law provided for qualifications itself, no further delegated legislation was required.

He said that those positions were advertised in Sept 2020 where the petitioner had applied amongst many others for the post of member hydropower.

The lawyer said his client had topped the merit list and was recommended by the Selection and Recommendation Committee for approval to be notified as a member (hydropower), but the process was not completed for one reason or another.

He argued that in the year 2024 new rules were introduced and new qualifications were prescribed and the petitioner was verbally refused appointment on the ground that he had crossed the age limit of 62 years.

Mr Butt said neither such rules could override the provisions of parent statute nor was the petitioner amenable to such rules that were formed almost four years after advertisement.

He argued that the respondents had filled up the positions of member (renewable energy) and member (finance) of the PEFO on the basis of already conducted interviews and recommendations of the relevant committee thus the petitioner could not be discriminated with and must not be deprived of his right to be appointed against the position of member (hydropower).

The lawyer contended that the verbal plea of the respondents that the petitioner had crossed the age limit of 62 years was absolutely illegal as not only the law did not prescribe any such limit but the petitioner was well within the age limit for the post at the time of applying and qualifying the interview.

He added that the petitioner could not be held responsible for delay of finalisation of the appointment process of the said post.

Mr Butt said that the process of appointment of the other two members as well as that of member (hydropower) were carried out in accordance with the advertisement of the year 2020, thus the respondents were bound to complete the recruitment process under the terms and conditions of the same advertisement.

The counsel for the Pedo argued that the appointment to the petitioner was refused under the relevant rules. He added that as the petitioner didn’t fulfil the criteria for the said post, he had not been appointed.

Published in Dawn, March 27th, 2025