ISLAMABAD: In an interim order, the Islamabad High Court (IHC) has stayed the government’s move to finalise the recommendations for appointment of Community Welfare Attaches (CWAs) in 12 foreign destinations having a sizeable presence of overseas Pakistanis.
The court passed the restraining order on the petition moved by the aggrieved candidates, while relisting the case within one month’s time. In the meanwhile, the Ministry of Overseas Pakistan and Human Resources Department (MOPHRD) has also been asked to file the comments in its response. Briefly, the MOPHRD had invited applications for recruitment as CWAs through an advertisement on October 27, 2019, and written test for the same was conducted by IBA on November 24, 2019. The result of the written exam was announced on December 1, 2019. Interviews were held from December 30, 2019, till January 6, 2020.
It is pertinent to mention that CWAs are appointed in the light of policy guidelines issued by the Establishment Division dated: February 16, 2016. The same policy guidelines were in vogue when the phase two of recruitment process had commenced. According to the aforesaid policy, the written test was apportioned 80 per cent of the weightage, while the interview would be allotted the remaining 20 per cent. However, in an interesting turn of events, the ministry proceeded to get the same policy changed while proposing to fix the minimum passing marks in the interview at 40 per cent with powers in hands of Special Selection Board (SSB) to fail any candidate. It was an attempt to secure arbitrary authority in choosing favorite candidates. The written test examines candidates in areas of emigration, labour market, data analytics and information technology skills. This itself speaks volumes of efficiency of written test and the efforts put by candidates who pass it with high water marks. But MOPHRD using pretext of new policy approved after written result was announced, gave more marks to candidates at bottom of written merit list while those who scored high marks were awarded low marks so that they stay out of the race for selection. There are allegations that MOPHRD picked blue-eyed candidates, those having some relatives inside MOPHRD, despite their poor performance in written exam.
The change in policy was approved by the prime minister on December 10, 2019, after the announcement of written test result on December 1, 2019. No notification of the changed policy was issued by MOPHRD and no intimation was made to the candidates appearing in interviews. It must be noted that same policy proposals were initiated by MOPHRD earlier during phase one of selection but were not entertained by Establishment Division and Prime Minister Office. Establishment Division, in one of its correspondence, clearly remarked that written test is sufficient to gauge suitability and aptitude of the candidates. Surprisingly, despite clear instructions from Establishment Division, MOPHRD again proceeded with new summary demanding 60 per cent weightage for interview with an intent of concentration of power in the hands of SSB. However, the same proposal was declined.
On a legal plinth, such a move on the part of ministry is bound to fail the test of legal scrutiny as no change in policy or substantive legislation can be applied retrospectively. The change in policy gave the interview an overriding edge in the recruitment. This alone reeked of the malafide intention on the part of the ministry thus lending credence to the allegations that the ministry wanted discretion in the recruitment process.
In fact, to this end, one of the famous English dailies had also published an Op-Ed dated February 14, 2019, detailing as to how the ministry, in complete departure with the policy guidelines, was bent on exercising its discretion in the selection of CWAs. The ministry had issued a rebuttal in response to that news item on February 18, 2019. In its response, while justifying the stance of the ministry in allocation of stations, the ministry believed that stations were allocated keeping in view the importance of stations in terms of workload, inter alia, number of overseas Pakistanis.
MOPHRD asserted that best batsman should play at the top and be sent to places where most of the work is required. The ministry deplored the idea of toppers opting for Europe and United States instead of working in Gulf Countries where majority of Pakistani emigrants’ work.
However, the result and recommendations of the phase two contradict the stance adopted by the ministry in its own rebuttal. The candidates at higher merit have been given stations in Europe, while the sensitive and important stations in the Middle East have been allocated to candidates lower in the merit. Shockingly, MOPHRD has given most sensitive and important stations of Middle East to those candidates from phase one who were declared misfit and unsuitable by the same SSB. The honorable IHC had ordered in favor of those candidates. These stark differences in what MOPHRD believes and what it practices is questionable.
This fact that both the phases of recruitment have been marred by litigation attests to the intractable attitude of the ministry which wants outright discretion in the selection process. Had there been no element of negative interference by the ministry, the process would have concluded smoothly and in accordance with the aforesaid policy. Due to the inordinate delay, there is uncertainty within the incumbent CWAs who are working on ad-hoc basis and on extensions, which also hampers the very purpose of CWAs: Welfare of Overseas Pakistanis. The only way out of this morass is the constitution of an independent panel who should make recommendations in the light of policy in effect then issued by the Establishment Division and best talent must be sent abroad to serve Pakistani diaspora.
