IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT ISLAMABAD Writ Petition 2904 / 2024 AHMAD ALI VERSUS PAKISTAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COUNCIL & ORS. Report & Para Wise Comments on behalf of respondent no. 2 & 3 Respectfully Sheweth: The answering respondents, respondent no, 2 & 3, pursuant to the orders of the court dated 04.07.2024 submits following report and para © comments with Preliminary Objections. REPORT i, Pakistan Agricultural Research Council has been formed to provide research support and state-of the art knowledge related to agricultural industry, considering agriculture being the backbone of the country economy. The council emphasis on ali branches related with agriculture such as livestock, poultry, fishery, forestry and as defined in section 2 of the Ordinance. The structure of the Council consists of a Board of Governors and an Executive Committee, which functions through the Chairman, being the Chief Executive of the Council. The Council, in order to fulfil the need of the manpower and quality research decided to issue advertisement through vernacular circulation for selection of candidates on various posts in accordance with law. It was decided to seck Selection through initial recruitment, as the rules and regulations allow the Council to make such recruitments. The rationale of such authority is to bank the latest knowledge and modern technology acquaintances from the market, in order to competeiv. iii Whe . ‘creas whole-time member of the PARC is not a requirement fo T Composition of a selection committee however, the expertise of any employee of the PARC including member, directors or DGs being subject specialist of relevant discipline may be terest Utilized to appoint the best human resource for the be: of PARC. Secondly, the appointment of whole-time members may be made by the President of Pakistan in exercise of power enshrined under article 105 of the Constitution of Pakistan however, the Section 9(5) of the PARC Ordinance, 1891 and the PARC's Rules 1984 empowers the Chairman of PARC, from ume to time, for the purpose of ensuring efficient functioning of the Council and facilitating its day to day functions, to assign or delegate any power, duty or assignment to members, officers and employees of the Council such of his functions, powers or duties as may be considered necessary by him, including assignment as a Member Incharge to any of the eligible senior employee on his own pay & scales, to run the day to day affairs of the council till the regular/whole-time appointment by the President of Pakistan. The rule 13 (dj(e) of the PARC's Rules 1984 empowers the Chairman in following terms: 13. Powers of the Chairman. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, the Chairman shail have the power- fd) consider necessary: to direct any employee of the Council to take up such assignment as he may fe) to re-designate or reorganize the set up of the Council and to lay down the duties and responsibilities, including administrative and financial powers, of the officers and employees of the Council; The instant petition is a product of malice in law and malice in ed objections mainly on the fact. The petitioner has rai of the appointments of the whole-time members and crite selection, as depicted through advertisement of 09.05.2024 Thewith th ¢ fast changing field and coup up with the needs of the mark ‘et_and the country. Consequently, a revised criteria for recruitment/selection in PARC 2017 was made accordingly in Pursuance of the decision of the Exccutive Committee taken in its Sth and 6th meeting held on 14.06.2017 and 25.07.2017 hence the Board of Governors approved the revised recruitment and promotion criteria 2017 as recommended by Executive Committee of PARC on 22.01.2018 thereafter, the PARC duly notified the approved criteria 2017 on 07.08.2017. The PARC in pursuance of said duly notified eligibility criteria advertised contract positions on 05.03.2024 and 09.05.2024 to fill 322 vacant positions including Principal Scientific Officer, Senior Scientific Officer, Scientific Officer and Assistant Scientific Officers. Whereas the Competent Authority has been envisaged the power to extend date or issue addendum or re- advertise the positions accordingly. Whereas the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the year 2019 directed the answering-respondent / PARC in the light of the Prime Minister Inspection Commission (PMIC} report wherein it was indicated that only achievement-based promotion and initial/direct recruitment shall be made. Hence the PARC Rules 1984 empowers the competent authority (ic Chairman) for appointment and promotion of the candidates on the recommendations of Selection Board/ Selection Committee that is constituted by the Competent Authority in pursuance of the chuse 2 () of the Pakistan Agncultural: Research Council lation 1984 in following manners Employees (Service) Re "Selection Committee” means the comamatier sonstiaied 1) Bound O¥ the Chairman for the purpose of making seletrom for tnrtaal apgoentneent 8 the posts im the Council.”c. Petition e1 er has called for the issuance of writ of quo-warranti against ¢ he Whole Time members and has on the basis of this sought ¢ ht certiorari against the issuance of advertisement. The assertions are g Ons are against law and the petition merits dismissal PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS The instant petition is not maintainable and merits to be dismissed with cost. The prayer sought is illegal and cannot be ranted as the body of the petition contravenes the law. . The petition has been filed to settle the personal vendetta of the petitioner, the petitioner is being proceeded Efficiency & Discipline Rules on charges and the present petition is an attempt to create a leverage upon the respondents. Such Petition is not maintainable in the light of the judgements of the Supreme Court reported at PLD 2022 SC 853 and judgment of Lahore High Court reported at 2023 PLC (CS) 314, on the strength of judgment of Islamabad High Court reported at 2021 PLC (CS) 140. The petition is seeking writ of quo-warranto and writ of certiorari and manadamus in one proceeding. Such petition is not maintainable and as settled by Supreme Court and affirmed by Lahore High Court Lahore in judgments reported at PLD 1994 SC 738, PLD 2018 SC114 and 2023 PLC (CS) 314. The petition has been filed with mala fide intentions and with ulterior motive. The petition is serving the agenda of specific persons, thus being a surrogate petition is not maintainable and merits to be dismissed with cost.©: The PARC / respondents is governed under ordinance of 1981 and there being no statutory rules of the body, the same is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this honorable court. f. The Petitioner is himself the applicant of the advertisement, being impugned by him and after participating in the whole process, the petitioner has come up with this attempt to seek settlement of his personal motives. The petition is hit by doctrine of estoppel. g. The petitioner is misleading the honorable court with mala- fide intent by making assertion on the appointment of the Whole-Time Members, as their appointment are made in accordance with law and by virtue of section 14 of the Ordinance, 1981 hence the actions of the BOG, Executive Committee does not stand vitiated on account of any assignment to the PARC’s employee against any vacant vacancy in accordance with Ordinance, 1981 or rules there- under whatsoever. REPLY TO PARA SUMMARY OF THE PETITION The Summary of the Petition is a misleading paragraph, in order to establish a case, whereas the instances of lack of jurisdiction mentioned have no bearing from the facts and have no sanction of law. The Para is denied in equivocal terms PARA WISE REPLY TO FACTS 1. Admitted to the extent of petitioner being in service, however the petitioner is being proceeded against under Efficiency and Discipline Rules for various charges. The petition is an attempt for an ulterior motive2. Matter of record, 3. DENIED. Primarily, PARC is an autonomous body and functions within the realm of its rules and regulations and under the PARC Ordinance, 1981, amended from time to time. Audit Paras do not create any vested right or finding in favour of any person, let alone, an audit para is dealt in accordance with the ordinance and law and same is not the subject of the matter in the instant petition. Auditor is neither competent nor posses the jurisdiction to make observations on the legal actions of the respondents. 4. DENIED. The competent authority has the authority to recall, cancel, any advertisement and appointment process, let alone the fact, the matter being of policy is not amenable to Jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Reliance is placed upon PLD 2014 SC 1. The assertion as to the whimsical formation of the Board and Executive Committee is nothing more than an assertion to create an effect and mislead the court. 5. DENIED. The criteria have been set in accordance with the Prevailing law and in accordance with law and rules governing the matter. The Advertisements issued thereunder are legal, valid and in accordance with law 6. DENIED. First and foremost, the assertion and matter being subjected here is already pending and is subjudiced before the Honorable Court in Writ Petition 1698 of 2024. Secondly, the members being targeted here do not form the quorum, nor they ny issue of being part of the Selection Com mm non judice. The petitioner relying on composition being the audit paras, suffice to submit, audit paras create no vested Tight in favour of any person7. DENIED. The assignment of respondent no, 10 is in accordance With law as the Section 9(5) of the PARC Ordinance, 1981 and the PARC’s Rules 1984 empowers the Chairman of the PARC accordingly. The petitioner making a case out of this assertion gives no cause of action in the prayer sought under the petiion s and The petitioner himself is part of the recruitment proces being part of the service of the respondents 1s fully aware of the compositions. The petitioner is creating a harassment over the respondents to settle his personal vendettas by hampering the appointment eligible scientists who are well-equipped with modern education and utilization modern technology use of action against the 8. DENIED. The petitioner has no cal appointment of the whole-time members. Their appointment, firstly being legal in all terms, does not relate to the already sought illegal relief. Secondly, the Board of Governors and Executive Committee does not rest upon the whole-time members, nor such matter is subject of the petition. 9. DENIED. The appointment of whole-time members in the Selection Committee is not ex-officio and to the extent of their appointment in the Selection Committee, there is neither any illegality, nor the petitioner has any locus standi over such matter, Suffice to say that petitioner is secking quo warranto in a collateral proceeding, which is illegal and not maintainable 10. DENIED. Already stated above, the advertisement is based on correct criteria and proper procedure of law 11. DENIED. Neither any against the law appointment i Penk made, nor the petitioners’ seniority is a vested right The appointments being made are through legal procedures and petition merits to be dismissed12, "DENIED. "The advertisement, appointments are in accordance wi Ce with law, the petition merits dismissal with cost ON GROUNDS A. Th le asser tion is baseless, not finding any sanction from law and the legal asser nn made therein is against law. B. The assertion is baseless, not finding any sanction from law and the legal assertion made therein is against law C. The assertion is baseless, not finding any sanction from law and the legal assertion made therein is against law. D. The assertion is bascless, not finding any sanction from law and the legal assertion made therein is against law. E. The assertion is baseless, not finding any sanction from law and the legal assertion made therein is against law F. The assertion is baseless, not finding any sanction from law and the legal assertion made therein is against law. G. The assertion is baseless, not finding any sanction from law and the legal assertion made therein is against law. H. The assertion is baseless, not finding any sanction from law and the legal assertion made therein is against law. I. Legal. ON PRAYER The Prayer sought is not maintainable and cannot be granted. The petition merits dismissal with cost. Answering-Respondents no. 2 & 3 Through (yibe wn Ms. Samina ina M, Hussain Director (Legal oye Nes OS baxistan agricuttural Research CNet " seeccieee