HYDERABAD: A division bench of Sindh High Court’s Hyderabad circuit has termed the age relaxation or intended reappointment of Dr Khalid Talpur, the retired executive director of Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences (SIOVS), illegal. Dr Talpur was removed from the post under an earlier court order.

The bench comprising Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Justice Adnanul Karim Memon signed the detailed order (which was reserved by another bench) on Monday.

Dr Arshad Lodhi had, through Advocate Sarmad Hani, filed a petition questioning government’s alleged intention to reappoint Dr Talpur, who was represented by Advocate Malik Naeem Iqbal in the case.

The petitioner had prayed court to declare the May 10 advertisement regarding appointment of SIOVS executive director ‘person-specific’ and violative of the relevant 2013 Act, Rules 2021 and Terms and Conditions Rules 2021. He submitted in court that the age bracket for the post could not exceed 60 years as provided under the Terms and Conditions Rules 2021. He pleaded for declaring that only a ‘serving’ professor could hold the office.

He also urged the court to declare the minutes of the April 27, 2022 meeting of SIOVS board of directors unlawful.

The petitioner’s counsel alleged that the age relaxation in the ad was offered just to accommodate respondent Dr Talpur who, he said, had reached the age of superannuation on Nov 3, 2020. He recalled that the reappointment of the respondent vide Nov 26, 2020 notification was questioned by the petitioner and court had allowed his petition on Dec 24, 2021. The court had directed the competent authority to de-notify the reappointment.

He claimed that the purpose of enhancing the age bracket from 60 to 65 years was a conscious attempt to enable the respondent to participate in the process of appointment.

Additional Advocate General (AAG) Allah Bachayo Soomro informed the bench about the status of the matter saying that recommendation had been finalised and only the result was to be announced. He added that Dr Talpur was shortlisted for the post and that an appointment on the post was subject to order of this court.

The respondent doctor’s counsel, Malik Naeem lqbal, refuted stance of the petitioner, arguing that the May 10 ad was placed in terms of court’s December 14 order. He submitted that the ad was not ‘person-specific’ to accommodate Dr Talpur but was aimed at providing an opportunity to experienced and senior professionals in the field to contest for the coveted position.

He submitted that it was misconceived on the part of the petitioner that only a serving professor could contest for the position, adding that there was prohibition contained in the provisions of the Act and rules.

While disposing of the petition, the bench observed that as per the ad, the candidate must be a professor of ophthalmology with experience but another rider was made that candidate should be 65 years of age.

It said these conditions were self-contradictory because director is required to be appointed amongst serving professor under Section 11 of Act 2013 and rule 7(1) of Rules 2021. It means he must be 60 or less than 60 years as such enhancing age limit from 60 to 65 years in the ad was “unwarranted and person specific, ultra vires to rules and is hereby, therefore, declared to be against law so also pronouncements of Supreme Court on subject”.

“Since upper age cap enhanced from 60 to 65 years in ad has been declared unlawful therefore advertisement is required to be read to the extent that candidate must be within 60 years age limit and not beyond that”, said court.

Earlier, when Dr Talpur’s counsel endorsed the official respondents’ view describing the post as an ex-cadre one with narration that subject post could be filled through contract, the court disagreed with him.

The bench observed: “The story doesn’t end here. It is stated that a private respondent has been reconsidered by competent authority/board and would be appointed once the veil imposed by this court vide order dated May 25 is lifted”.

The court remarked that prima facie the aforesaid attitude of respondents was surprising rather shocking just to circumvent ratio of judgement dated Dec 24, 2021 of this court whereby reappointment of respondent was nullified and which had attained finality as no civil petition was preferred before Supreme Court. Now, the bench said, respondent board of directors SIOVS under garb of Rule 7(4) was attempting reappointment of respondent though he stood retired from SIOVS in 2020.

The court disposed of the petition with directives to the competent authority to announce the result of shortlisted candidates forthwith strictly in terms of Section 11 of the Act 2013 and in the light of what has been discussed and concluded above.

Published in Dawn, November 22nd, 2022