The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that constitutional jurisdiction in matters relating to appointments in public universities can only be invoked where there is clear evidence of illegality, mala fide, bias, violation of the principles of natural justice, or excess of lawful authority.
Mere non-selection of a candidate or allegations of procedural irregularities do not, by themselves, make a constitutional petition maintainable.
According to the detailed judgment, a two-member bench comprising Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha allowed an appeal filed by the University of Karachi and set aside the Sindh High Court’s judgment dated June 13, 2025.
The court restored the recommendations of the Selection Board made on December 21, 2023, which had been approved by the University’s Syndicate on April 5, 2024.
The judgment observed that although public universities are statutory institutions, not every service-related dispute involving their employees or candidates can be adjudicated through constitutional petitions. It held that constitutional jurisdiction is attracted only where there is a clear violation of a statutory or mandatory legal provision, mala fide, breach of the principles of natural justice, or abuse of authority.
The court also disagreed with the Sindh High Court’s finding that the Selection Board proceedings had violated the applicable rules. It held that Dr. Shaheena Naz participated only in the proceedings relating to a post for which she was not a candidate, and therefore her participation did not violate Rule 6(4).
The Federal Constitutional Court further held that allegations of bias cannot be established merely on the basis of assertions. It noted that no credible material had been placed on record to demonstrate that the selection process was unlawful.
The judgment emphasized that the Selection Board is the competent forum to assess candidates on the basis of their overall qualifications, research record, interview performance and comparative merit. Courts, it said, should not interfere in such matters unless a clear legal defect is established. The court also found no evidence of fraud, ineligibility or any unlawful conduct on the part of the successful candidates, observing that there was no justification for subjecting them to a fresh selection process.
Warning against excessive judicial intervention, the court observed that if every unsuccessful candidate’s grievance were converted into a constitutional case, constitutional courts would effectively become appellate forums for the academic and administrative decisions of universities, a course inconsistent with the Constitution and the institutional autonomy of higher education establishments.
Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Sindh High Court’s judgment, and restored the decisions of the University of Karachi’s Selection Board and Syndicate.
FCC notices NAB on plea challenging closure of Haris Steel Mills reference
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Wednesday, issued a notice to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on a petition challenging the closure of the Haris Steel Mills reference and directed all parties to maintain the status quo until the next hearing. The court observed that further proceedings in the case would resume after the court’s summer recess.
A three-member bench headed by Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi heard the matter.
During the hearing, counsel for the bank, Khawaja Haris, submitted that the loan in question had been obtained through forged documents and fake identity cards, describing it as a serious case of fraud. He further alleged that certain officials of the Bank of Punjab were also involved in the fraudulent scheme.
Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi asked whether the documents had not been cross-checked at the relevant time, remarking that necessary precautions were often ignored until after an incident had occurred.
Khawaja Haris further informed the court that, following the closure of the reference, the process of releasing the bank guarantee had already begun. He requested the court to grant interim relief by restraining any further action until a final decision was reached.
Justice Aamir Farooq observed that the central legal issue in the case was whether NAB’s decision to withdraw or close the reference could itself be challenged. He said the court would first determine the maintainability of the petition against NAB’s decision.