ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Thursday emphasised that appointments to important public offices must demonstrably conform to constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, institutional integrity and merit-based governance. “Public authority cannot be exercised on undisclosed considerations, nor can structured procedures be reduced to empty formalities,” observed Justice Rozi Khan Barrech in a judgement he authored. Justice Barrech was a member of a three-judge FCC bench, headed by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, while hearing an appeal filed by Sifatullah Khan against a March 5, 2026, Peshawar High Court (PHC) order setting aside his appointment as chairman of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE), Bannu, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The FCC observed that the legitimacy of public administration depended not merely on the existence of power, but on the disciplined and transparent exercise of that power in accordance with the law. Court upholds PHC ruling setting aside appointment of BISE Bannu chairman It upheld the PHC order, stating that it did not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity warranting interference by the FCC. The petitioner had challenged the PHC verdict that not only set aside his May 13, 2025, appointment notification but also directed the controlling authority to entrust the duties of chairman to another suitable person within three months. When the post of BISE Bannu chairman fell vacant, applications were invited from eligible candidates. Through a notification dated Feb 2, 2021, the controlling authority constituted a search and scrutiny committee to interview shortlisted candidates for the post. Under its terms of reference (ToRs), the committee was mandated to evaluate and interview shortlisted candidates and recommend a panel of three officers for each post for approval by the KP chief minister. The committee conducted interviews on Sept 26, 2024. Later, the committee recommended three names, but dropped that of the petitioner. The recommendations were forwarded through various secretaries and later placed before the KP chief minister for approval. The controversy arose when a revised summary was prepared, placing the petitioner’s name at serial number four. He was subsequently appointed on deputation for three years through a notification dated Sept 13, 2025, ignoring the committee’s recommendations entirely. ‘Doctrine of pleasure’ In his judgement, Justice Barrech observed that the “doctrine of pleasure, or the existence of administrative discretion, cannot be invoked to legitimise a process which, on its face, departs from the very mechanism devised by the executive itself”. The FCC observed that administrative decisions affecting public appointments must disclose the basis for any departure from the prescribed procedure. It added that silence on the record in this regard was fatal to the validity of such action. “The doctrine of pleasure, in its constitutional and administrative sense, does not confer an unfettered licence upon the executive to act in disregard of self-imposed procedural discipline,” the judgement held. It added that while the executive might, subject to law, appoint and remove public functionaries, the exercise of such power remained subject to the rule of law and the constitutional obligation to act fairly and rationally. Published in Dawn, June 5th, 2026