๐๐ก๐ ๐๐๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐จ๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ฏ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐ฒ ๐๐๐๐ข๐๐๐ซ ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ง ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ฅ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ฐ๐ข๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก๐จ๐ซ๐ข๐ญ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐ฐ.
The last caretaker government amended the NADRA rules by inserting Rule 7A, which empowers the Federal Government to appoint in the national interest any officer from the Service of Pakistan as NADRA chairman. This Rule was later affirmed by the Federal Government in March 2024. The caretaker government on the basis of the said Rule appointed an Army General as Chairman NADRA, which appointment was subject matter of the case in hand.ย
The Government took stance before the High Court that the appointment was in accordance with the Rule which was enacted by the Government and no deviation has taken place in the said appointment. Writ of quo warranto is a limited power wherein only legality of an appointment can be adjudged not the amendment in rules or laws. For that purpose, a separate writ should be filed. The Court on this objection ruled that it is correct that challenge cannot be thrown to vires of law in writ of quo warranto but the authority of law under which the Government has made the law, in pursuance whereof an appointment has been made, can be adjudged and looked into in writ of quo warranto. The Court here has comprehensively dilated on the concept of quo warranto and has made reference to a few seminal judgments on the point.
The Court held that though a Rule was inserted by the Government but that Rule is inconsistent with the parent enactment i.e. NADRA Ordinance 2002. The Ordinance fetters the Government discretion of appointment by making due advertisement and merit based criteria mandatory for making an appointment to the office of Chairman NADRA. The Court stated that such criteria is missing in the case of the incumbent Chairman NADRA and the same is missing from the amended Rule as well. Meaning thereby, the Rule and the appointment are not in accordance with law i.e the Ordinance or, in other words, not under the authority of law as mentioned in Article 199 of the Constitution.
Therefore, being inconsistent with the Ordinance, the Court held the appointment illegal and without authority of law.
If you have any queries regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to reach out to us.
Stereo
