Judicial Review of Public University's Appointment Decisions

The Lahore High Court addressed the legality of a public university's decision to re-advertise a post rather than appoint a candidate based on previous selection board recommendations (2024 LHC 4010). The Court emphasized the limits of judicial intervention in administrative decisions concerning appointments, especially where statutory authorities such as the Selection Board, Syndicate, and Chancellor have acted within their legal mandate.

Background:

The appeal was filed by Lahore College for Women University (LCWU) against a judgment by a Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which directed the university to issue an appointment letter to Dr. Rehana Kausar for the position of Professor of Urdu (BS-21). The university had re-advertised the post after finding that the selection process was flawed and external evaluations were outdated. The university’s Syndicate and Chancellor upheld the decision to re-advertise the post despite earlier recommendations favoring Dr. Rehana Kausar. The appellant challenged the Single Judge’s decision on the grounds that the judgment overstepped the Court’s jurisdiction and interfered with the administrative discretion of university authorities.

Key Issues:

Judicial Scope in Appointment Processes: Whether the Court, while exercising its powers under Article 199 of the Constitution, could compel a university to issue an appointment letter, effectively substituting its judgment for that of the Selection Board, Syndicate, and Chancellor.

University’s Decision to Re-advertise the Post: The legality of the decision by the university’s Syndicate and Chancellor to re-advertise the post after determining that the selection process did not meet the prescribed statutory standards.

Final Authority of the Chancellor: The role of the Chancellor under the LCWU Ordinance, 2002, and whether his decision to re-advertise the post was binding and beyond judicial review.

Court's Analysis:

Judicial Overreach in Administrative Decisions: The Court reaffirmed that judicial intervention in the administrative processes of appointment is limited. It cited precedents such as Muhammad Ashraf Sangri vs. Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 157), emphasizing that courts are not equipped to substitute their views for those of selection bodies unless there is clear evidence of illegality or procedural unfairness. The Court emphasized that it could not dictate an appointment but could only ensure that the statutory process was followed.

Compliance with University Statutes: The Court noted that the decision to re-advertise the post was made after reviewing the flawed selection process, particularly the reliance on outdated external evaluations. This violated Clause 6(5) of the LCWU Service Statutes, which required fresh evaluations for each appointment process. Therefore, the decision to re-advertise was in compliance with the university’s statutory rules.

Chancellor’s Final Authority: The Court held that the Chancellor’s decision under Clause 7(2) of the LCWU Ordinance, 2002, was final and binding in cases of disagreement between the Selection Board and Syndicate. The Chancellor’s directive to re-advertise the post was within his legal authority, and the Court could not interfere with that discretion.

Role of Courts in Selection Processes: Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in The Secretary Punjab Public Service Commission vs. Aamir Hayat (2019 SCMR 124) and Chief Executive Officer, Multan Electric Power Company Ltd. vs. Muhammad Ilyas (2021 SCMR 775), the Court reiterated that selection and appointment decisions fall exclusively within the domain of the appointing authorities. Courts should refrain from substituting their judgment for that of the designated administrative bodies.

Court's Conclusion: The Lahore High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier judgment by the Single Judge. It held that the decision to re-advertise the post of Professor of Urdu (BS-21) at LCWU was legally sound and made in accordance with the university’s statutes. The Court further affirmed that the Chancellor's decision to re-advertise the post was final and binding, and could not be questioned through a writ petition.

Contact Us:

For legal advice regarding university governance, employment law, and challenges to administrative decisions, contact AUJ LAWYERS LLP. Our experienced team offers strategic guidance on navigating complex legal frameworks in educational institutions.

We are here to help

Talk to our lawyers today. We tailor our services around your legal needs so that we can reach the desired outcome together.