IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.2119 of 2018 
(Against judgment dated 02.04.2018 passed 
by the Islamabad High Court Islamabad in ICA 
No.179-W/2012) 
 
Dr. Shamim Tariq 
  
 
…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
International Islamic University, Islamabad  
through its President & others 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, 
ASC 
 
Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR 
 
For Respondent No.1: 
Mr. Rehan-ud-Din Khan, ASC 
 
For Respondent No.4: 
Mr. Babar Awan, Sr.ASC 
 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
Date of hearing: 
12.2.2020. 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.-Dr. Shamim Tariq, 
petitioner herein, has a turbulent academic career in the Faculty of 
the International Islamic University, an institution chartered by 
Ordinance No.XXX of 1985, hereinafter referred to as the 
University; credited with a Doctorate in Urdu Literature, she was 
first appointed, under Tenure Track System, hereinafter referred to 
as the T.T.S, as an Assistant Professor (Urdu) in BPS-19, way back 
on 13.6.2009; her services were terminated on 29.9.2010.  
A Constitutional Petition i.e. W.P. No.3138 of 2010, disputing 
termination was withdrawn by her on 20.1.2010, statedly in lieu of 
assurance pledged by the University to take her on board for 
consideration in future appointment and it is in this backdrop that 
Civil Petition No.2119 of 2018 
2
she was appointed as Lecturer (Urdu) in BPS-18, IIU on 8.2.2011, 
on ad hoc basis; after availing extension for further six months, 
she was still on job when the University advertised  on 19.6.2011 
various academic posts that included Assistant Professor (Urdu) in  
BPS-19; in the meanwhile she was terminated once again on 
5.10.2011. The petitioner applied once again, however, failed to 
join five short listed candidates, namely, Dr. Robina Shahin, 
Rashida Qazi, Dr. Fareeha Nighat, Farhat Jabeen Virk and Sadia 
Tahir; successive droppage on account of previous adverse 
evaluation under the T.T.S. was cited as the reason behind her 
exclusion. From amongst the short listed candidates, Dr. Sadia 
Tahir, respondent secured the appointment. The petitioner 
recoursed to law once again through W.P. No.18 of 2012; she 
prayed for a declaration against the respondent as well as a 
direction for her appointment as Assistant Professor (Urdu). A 
learned Judge-in-Chamber of Islamabad High Court vide judgment 
dated 6.4.2012 set aside respondent’s appointment while directing 
the University to draw up the process afresh so as to consider the 
petitioner. Dissatisfied, the University as well as the respondent 
preferred an Intra Court Appeal i.e. I.C.A. No.179-W/2012;  
a learned Division Bench vide order dated 14.5.2012 dismissed the 
Intra Court Appeal in limine on the ground of its being non-
maintainable in absence of statutory rules; this Court, however, 
vide judgment dated 15.2.2013 set aside the decision and 
remanded the case in the following terms:- 
 
“We have noted that Respondent No.1 has taken as 
many as 13 grounds in the memorandum of appeal and 
the same had not been adverted to. Even otherwise, it 
appears from the impugned judgment that other 
grounds were taken up but “main emphasis of the 
learned counsel for the appellants 
was on the 
maintainability of writ petition due to non-statutory 
rules.” This being the position, we convert this petition 
into appeal and allow the same. The impugned 
judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the 
High Court for deciding afresh Intra Court Appeal 
No.179-W of 2012 on merits, which shall be deemed to 
be pending.” 
 
The Intra Court Appeal came up for hearing before a Larger Bench 
of the Islamabad High Court; it was clubbed with cases wherein 
the Court examined the status of the Rules adopted by the 
University; quest by the University met with no better fate; the 
Civil Petition No.2119 of 2018 
3
battle continued to rage once again before this Court in Civil 
Petition No.2430 of 2015, resulting into another remand order on 
7.12.2015. It is in pursuance thereto that the judgment dated 
6.4.2012 by the learned Judge-in-Chamber was finally set aside, in 
consequence whereof, appointment of the respondent was finally 
affirmed, vide judgment dated 02.04.2018, vires whereof are being 
assailed on grounds more than one.  
2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 
notwithstanding 
petitioner’s 
eligibility/qualification, 
she 
was 
excluded from the array of short listed candidates for reasons far 
from being fair or bona fide; according to him, the entire exercise 
was carried out for extraneous purposes to accommodate the 
respondent who was not even qualified for the post on the relevant 
date, as she had yet to defend her dissertation/thesis, a 
mandatory requirement for the position advertised; the bottom line 
is that entire process of appointment smacked favoritism and as 
such was liable to be struck off; it is further argued that a direction 
for petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Professor (Urdu) in BPS-
19 would be just and fair to remedy the wrong, being endured by 
her since 2011. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 contends 
that much water has flown under the bridge since her appointment 
and as she has been aptly performing her duties to the satisfaction 
of University Authorities as well as the students, it would be most 
inexpedient to oust her from the job as, by now, she holds a 
Doctorate in Urdu Literature; according to him, she met the 
requirements of the job as advertised in the newspaper dead line 
whereof was 30th June, 2011 without there being any reference to 
a Ph.D. as one of the preconditions; it is next argued that the 
respondent after sacrificing her previous jobs secured the 
appointment on her own merit, being best in the lot and that the 
petitioner cannot step into her shoes through a Quo Warranto.  
Mr. Rehan-ud-Din Khan, ASC while faithfully defending the 
University, nonetheless, fairly conceded that respondent did not 
hold a Doctorate when applied for the job.  
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Advertisement 
soliciting 
applications 
reads 
“Applications are invited from qualified persons for the following 
Civil Petition No.2119 of 2018 
4
posts”; job description/qualification is further explained as 
follows:- 
 
     Assistant Professor BPS-19/TTS 
“Economics (Female); Comparative Religion (Male & 
Female); Psychology (Male); Mechanical Engineering 
(Male); English Linguistic & Literature (Male & Female); 
Mass Communications (Male); Mathematics (Male & 
Female); Politics & IR (Female); Software Engineering 
(Male & Female); Management Sciences (Male & Female); 
Islamic Art & Architecture (Male & Female) Hadith 
(Female); Tafseer (Female); Seerah & Islamic History 
(Female); Urdu (Male & Female); Physics (Male & 
Female); Computer Science (Male & Female); Education 
(Male); Sociology (Female); History and Pakistan Studies 
(Male 
& 
Female); 
Business 
Communication 
for 
Management Sciences (Male & Female); Bio Informatics 
(Male & Female) Environmental Sciences (Male & 
Female); Arabic Translation (Male & Female); Law (Male 
& Female); Electronic Engineering (Male & Female).” 
 
The advertisement refers the candidates to look for required 
qualifications for each position provided in the University Website 
(www.iiu.edu.pk) and for the post of Assistant Professor in all 
disciplines other than Arabic & Law, the following requirements 
are mentioned:- 
 
“Ph.D in the relevant field from an HEC recognized 
University/Institution. 
 
  
 
OR 
 
Master’s degree (foreign) or M.S/M.Phil equivalent 
degrees awarded after 18 years of education as 
determined by the HEC in the relevant field from and 
HEC recognized University/Institution. Four years 
teaching research experience in a recognized university 
or 
a 
post-graduation 
Institution 
or 
Professional 
experience in the relevant field in a National or 
International Organization.” 
  
The candidates were required to meet the above criteria on the date 
of submission of their applications i.e. 30th June, 2011; the 
respondent did not possess the requisite qualification on the said 
date and as such was not qualified to be considered for the job, a 
position at a seat of learning, maintained by the exchequer. 
Respondent’s acclaimed academic brilliance as well as extensive 
teaching experience notwithstanding, nonetheless, digression from 
the prescribed criteria cannot be countenanced without setting an 
ominous precedent, casting its fall out on other disciplines as well. 
Adherence to the statutory rules and procedures for selection of 
public jobs is the only surest method to objectively select the best 
out of the best from a competing lot; it is rooted into the 
fundamentals of equal opportunity, equal treatment and equal 
protections; any deviation therefrom would rock the bottom of the 
Civil Petition No.2119 of 2018 
5
Republic, resting upon equiponderance. State authority in every 
sphere of life is a sacred trust to be exercised fairly and justly by 
the functionaries to accomplish the purposes assigned to them by 
law; it is their bounden duty to do right to the all manner of 
people, without any distinction. It is most important that right 
people are selected for official positions to serve the Republic as it 
is imperative to survive and sustain into today’s competitive World; 
deviation would be treacherously seditious. Constitutionally 
recognized principle of equal opportunity is strengthened by divine 
affirmation, upheld and followed by every modern constitution of 
the day. 
 
ﷲ ﻢﺗ ﻮﮐ ﻢﮑﺣ ﺎﺘﯾد ﮯﮨ ہﮐ ﺖﻧﺎﻣا ںﻮﻟاو ﯽﮐ ﮟﯿﺗﺎﻧﺎﻣا نا 
ﮯﮐ ﮯﻟاﻮﺣ ﺮﮐ ﺎﯾد وﺮﮐ روا ﺐﺟ ںﻮﮔﻮﻟ ﮟﯿﻣ ہﻠﺼﯿﻓ 
ﮯﻧﺮﮐ ﻮﮕﻟ ﻮﺗ فﺎﺼﻧا ﮯﺳ ہﻠﺼﯿﻓ ﺎﯿﮐ وﺮﮐﺎﺴﻨﻟا ةرﻮﺳ) 
ء( 
 ﺎَﮭِﻠْھَأ ﻰَﻟِإ ِتﺎَﻧﺎَﻣَﻷا ْاوﱡدﺆُﺗ نَأ ْﻢُﻛُﺮُﻣْﺄَﯾ َّ� ﱠنِإ
 ِلْﺪَﻌْﻟﺎِﺑ ْاﻮُﻤُﻜْﺤَﺗ نَأ ِسﺎﱠﻨﻟا َﻦْﯿَﺑ ﻢُﺘْﻤَﻜَﺣ اَذِإَو 
 
As the respondent did not possess requisite qualification, the 
Selection Board had no occasion to consider her in preference to 
those who possessed the qualifications as advertised by the 
University itself; argument that the impugned appointment is 
based upon considerations other than noble does not appear to be 
beside the mark. Similarly, contention that the respondent 
acquired the requisite qualification soon after her selection and 
during the subsequent years, irretrievably gone by, mentored 
excellence and, thus, her expulsion from the service so late in the 
day would be an option, most inexpedient in circumstances, fails 
to impress us; none other than herself has to debit the blame, 
Selection Board being accomplice next to her. Stream of justice 
must 
run 
pure 
and 
clean. 
Consequently, 
respondent’s 
appointment as Assistant Professor (Urdu) in BPS-19 is declared to 
have been made without lawful authority and accordingly set 
aside. The Selection Board shall convene at the earliest to appoint 
a suitable candidate from amongst the already short listed 
candidates, excluding both the petitioner as well as the 
respondent; exercise be completed within a period of three months 
with a dispatch of compliance report. 
 
Petitioner’s prayer for appointment as Assistant Professor 
(Urdu) in BPS-19 against the same post in her quest through quo 
warranto cannot be granted inasmuch as the Court can certainly 
Civil Petition No.2119 of 2018 
6
issue a direction for an incumbent’s departure from the office for 
lack of credentials, nonetheless, conclusion of such an exercise 
would not, by itself, pave way to fill the vacancy merely on the 
ground that the competitor had no justification to hold the same 
and that she was better placed in circumstances.  Civil Petition is 
disposed of in the above terms. 
 
These are the reasons of our short order of even date, 
reproduced as under:- 
“For the reasons to be recorded, this petition is 
disposed of by declaring the appointment of 
respondent No.4 to the post of Assistant Professor 
(Urdu) in the respondent No.1/University as illegal 
and 
direct 
the 
university 
to 
re-evaluate 
and  
re-interview the other candidates who were found 
eligible to be considered to the post in accordance 
with law and make the appointment accordingly. 
Such exercise be concluded within a period of three 
months from today and compliance report of the 
order be submitted to this Court soon thereafter.”  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
12th February, 2020 
Approved for reporting 
Azmat/-