While issuing a written order over the plea challenging appointments of bureaucrats instead of engineers as project directors in violation of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1979, the Balochistan High Court has asked the provincial government to make the appointments in accordance with law after tabling the issue before forthcoming Cabinet meeting.
Earlier in January last, Advocates Umer Ijaz Gilani and Aimal Khan Kakar have invoked the jurisdiction of Balochistan High Court (BHC) challenging the act of Planning and Development Department of Balochistan about appointing deputy commissioners as project directors instead of engineers in grave violation of Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1979. They urged the BHC to issue directives to the provincial government for appropriately qualified engineers appointment against the slots in the province.
Appearing before the division bench of the BHC comprising Chief Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail on behalf of PEC since January 2021, the counsels have apprised the court that the provincial government has appointed bureaucrats to the post of ‘Project Director’ on various infrastructure projects and that too, on acting charge basis.
Terming the practice illegal as being in stark violation of Section 27 of the PEC Act, 1976 and various judgments of the superior courts, counsels argued that the top court had cautioned in a number of verdicts that non-engineers should not be appointed to posts requiring engineering expertise.
Issuing a two-page order in the matter on Tuesday, the court said in its order, “the learned counsel stated that there is no expert/technical person in the committee, therefore, he suggested to include one technical/expert person of the relevant field in the committee. Clause 7(ii) Qualification & Experience of the Candidate. This clause is related to the qualification and experience of the candidate. The learned counsel suggested that in case of Engineering Project, an additional qualification of having professional license to be added in this clause. All the above proposals/suggestions have been submitted by the learned counsel in writing as well as copy whereof has been provided to the learned Additional Advocate General (AAG).
The Bench said in its order, “The AAG Mir Shai Haq Baloch should discuss the proposals with the competent authority for consideration. It is expected that the Cabinet will finalize the issue at the earliest possible in its forthcoming meeting”. After granting two weeks time to the AAG the bench asked him to come up with a progress report on the matter.
