Case Comment (a) Whether simply passing a written examination and being invited for an interview establishes any legal right or legitimate expectation for the candidates regarding their selection or appointment. (b) Whether the outcome of an interview process can be legally challenged within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court (C.Ps.No. 154-K of 2022 and 166-K of 2022)

Facts of the Case  C.Ps.No. 154-K of 2022 and 166-K of 2022 

The petitioners, Waheed Gul Khan and Mumtaz Ali, applied for employment in the Food Department of the Government of Sindh following an advertisement dated 14th February 2010. They successfully passed the written examination and were subsequently called for an interview through a letter dated 26th December 2011. However, after the interview, the petitioners did not receive any information about the outcome. They later discovered that certain candidates, who allegedly had not appeared for the written test, were appointed to the positions. This led the petitioners to file constitutional petitions before the High Court of Sindh, challenging the appointments and asserting that they were entitled to be appointed. The High Court dismissed their petitions through a consolidated order on 15th December 2021. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.

Citations and Their Interpretations in the Judgement

1. Secretary Finance and others v. Ghulam Safdar (2005 SCMR 534):
   • What the Citation Says: This case established that merely passing a written examination and interview does not create a vested right for the candidates to claim appointment through constitutional jurisdiction. The judgment clarified that unless an official offer of appointment is issued, candidates do not possess a Fundamental Right that can be enforced through a constitutional petition.
   • Application in the Present Case: The Supreme Court used this precedent to affirm that the petitioners did not acquire any vested right to the positions merely by passing the written test and being called for an interview. The Court noted that without an official offer of appointment, the petitioners’ claims were not legally enforceable.
2. Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 157):
   • What the Citation Says: The case emphasizes that an interview is a subjective test and that it is not within the jurisdiction of a court to replace the opinion of the Interview Board with its own, unless there is clear evidence of mala fides, bias, or significant errors in judgment. The role of the Interview Board is to assess candidates based on subjective criteria such as communication skills, presentation, and other interpersonal attributes.
   • Application in the Present Case: The Supreme Court referred to this ruling to underscore that the High Court was correct in dismissing the petitioners’ challenge to the interview process. The Court reinforced the principle that unless there is clear evidence of bias or impropriety, the outcome of an interview cannot be legally challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the petitions on the grounds that the petitioners had no vested right to the positions based solely on their performance in the written examination and that the subjective nature of the interview process precluded any judicial interference. The Court found no evidence of bias or impropriety in the interview process and concluded that the petitions were devoid of merit, thus refusing to grant leave to appeal.

The judgment highlights the principle that the selection process, particularly the interview phase, involves subjective assessments that are beyond the scope of judicial review unless there is clear evidence of malfeasance. Without an official offer of appointment, candidates cannot claim any legal right or legitimate expectation for appointment, and the outcome of the interview process cannot be challenged under constitutional jurisdiction unless there is evidence of improper conduct.

(a) Whether simply passing a written examination and being invited for an interview establishes any legal right or legitimate expectation for the candidates regarding their selection or appointment:

The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its judgment, has clearly articulated that merely passing a written examination and being invited for an interview does not, in itself, establish any legal right or legitimate expectation for the candidates regarding their selection or appointment. The Court held that qualifying for an interview does not create any vested right to a specific post. This principle is well-established in the case of Secretary Finance and others v. Ghulam Safdar (2005 SCMR 534), where it was held that selection in a written examination and interview does not automatically entitle candidates to claim enforcement of such a right through constitutional jurisdiction. The appointment process involves multiple stages, including the critical interview phase, which assesses a candidate’s interpersonal skills, presentation, and other intangible qualities that are not evaluated in the written examination. Therefore, without an offer of appointment, candidates do not possess a legally enforceable right to the position they are applying for, and any expectation of appointment remains conditional until all required procedures, including the interview, are successfully completed and an offer is formally made.

(b) Whether the outcome of an interview process can be legally challenged within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court:

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of whether the outcome of an interview process can be challenged within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court noted that an interview is inherently a subjective evaluation, and it is not within the jurisdiction of a court of law to substitute its opinion for that of the Interview Board. The role of the Interview Board is to assess candidates based on various subjective criteria, including their interpersonal and communication skills, which are essential for determining their suitability for the job. Courts are generally not equipped to probe into the subjective assessments made during the interview process unless there are clear indications of mala fides, bias, or significant errors in judgment. In the absence of such evidence, the interview outcome cannot be successfully challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. This principle is reaffirmed by the Court in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 157), where it was held that the subjective nature of the interview process precludes the court from interfering unless there is clear evidence of improper conduct. Therefore, without demonstrable evidence of bias or impropriety, the decisions of the Interview Board are considered final and not subject to judicial review under the constitutional jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court, in this case, upheld the decision of the High Court, affirming that the petitioners had no legal grounds to challenge the interview outcome and that their petitions were rightly dismissed. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed for lacking merit, and leave to appeal was refused.

The implications of this case for future cases are significant in terms of how the judiciary will handle challenges to recruitment and appointment processes, particularly concerning written examinations and interviews. Here are the key implications:

1. No Vested Right from Passing Written Exams:
   • This case reaffirms the principle that merely passing a written examination and being invited for an interview does not create any vested right for the candidate regarding their selection or appointment. Future litigants challenging recruitment decisions based solely on their performance in the written examination or interview will find it difficult to argue that they have a legal right to appointment unless they have received a formal offer of employment.
2. Limited Judicial Review of Interview Outcomes:
   • The Supreme Court’s judgment highlights the limited scope of judicial review regarding the outcomes of interviews. Courts are likely to refrain from intervening in the subjective assessments made by interview boards, recognizing that such evaluations are based on intangible qualities like communication skills, personality traits, and presentation, which are not easily measurable by judicial standards. This precedent will discourage future candidates from challenging interview results unless they can provide clear evidence of bias, mala fides, or significant procedural irregularities.
3. High Burden of Proof for Allegations of Bias or Impropriety:
   • For candidates to successfully challenge the outcomes of recruitment processes in the future, they will need to meet a high burden of proof. They must provide substantial evidence of bias, corruption, or procedural irregularities. The mere dissatisfaction with the interview result or suspicions of impropriety will not suffice to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the courts. This sets a high bar for future challenges, likely leading to fewer successful petitions.
4. Affirmation of the Administrative Discretion in Recruitment:
   • The judgment strengthens the principle of administrative discretion in recruitment processes. It acknowledges that interview boards and administrative authorities are better equipped to assess the suitability of candidates for specific roles. Courts will continue to respect this discretion unless there is a clear breach of law or evidence of discriminatory practices. This implication reinforces the autonomy of administrative bodies in making final decisions about appointments.
5. Deterrence of Frivolous Litigation:
   • By upholding the dismissal of the petitions, the judgment serves as a deterrent to frivolous litigation concerning recruitment processes. Candidates may be less likely to bring cases before the courts unless they have a strong, evidence-backed claim. This could lead to a reduction in the number of constitutional petitions filed regarding employment disputes, easing the burden on the judiciary.
6. Clarity on the Role of Constitutional Jurisdiction:
   • The case clarifies that constitutional jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving disputes related to subjective assessments like interviews unless there is a significant legal issue at play, such as allegations of constitutional rights violations or discriminatory practices. This clear delineation will guide future cases in determining whether a particular grievance should be addressed within the constitutional framework or through other legal avenues.
7. Impact on Public Sector Employment:
   • For public sector employment in Pakistan, this judgment emphasizes the importance of following transparent and fair recruitment processes. Government departments and public institutions may be more vigilant in ensuring that their hiring practices are beyond reproach to avoid legal challenges. This could lead to improved standards and accountability in public sector recruitment.

In summary, this case sets a robust precedent that limits the ability of candidates to challenge recruitment outcomes based solely on their dissatisfaction with interview results or the fact that they passed a written exam. It underscores the judiciary’s respect for administrative discretion and sets a high threshold for judicial intervention, which will shape the landscape of employment-related litigation in Pakistan for the foreseeable future.

Call for Free Legal Advice +92-3048734889

Email : [email protected]

https://joshandmakinternational.com