PESHAWAR: The Supreme Court has ruled that the federal ombudsman can neither order nor recommend appointments to the Peshawar Electric Supply Company.

The ruling was given by a bench of late in the detailed verdict on the Pesco`s appeal against the recommendations of the federal ombudsman (Wafagi Mohtasib) in a case about the appointment of the retired employees` children to the Pesco.

Justice Amir Hani Muslim with Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan and Justice Tariq Pervez Khan, who had heard the case in Islamabad, observed that the jurisdiction of the federal ombudsman in deciding complaints was limited as the provided in Article 9 of the President`s Order No 1 of 1983 (Establishment of the Office of Wafagi Mohtasib Order 1983).

Abdur Rauf Rohaila, lawyer for the Pesco, said the federal ombudsman had made certain recommendations on the complaints filed by some former employees of the company seeking appointment of their children to the organisation in line with 20 percent quota reserved for the children of Wapda deceased or retired employees.

He said the Pesco had filed a petition with the Peshawar High Court against the ombudsman`s recommendations but the court upheld the recommendations prompting the company to file a leave to appeal petition against it.The lawyer said the jurisdiction of the ombudsman to entertain a complaint depended on the provisions contained in Article 9 of the President Order`s No 1 of 1983.

He insisted neither the ombudsman had the powers to order and recommend any appointment nor could it implement the Pesco recruitment policy in view of the bar contained in clauses 1 and 2 of Article 9 of the President Order`s No 1 of 1983.

The lawyer said in the said article, it was clearly mentioned that the ombudsman won`t accept for investigation any complaint by or on behalf of a public servant or functionary concerning any matter relating to the agency in which he was or had been working in respect of any personal grievance relating to his service therein.

The lawyer appearing for the federal ombudsman and an additional attorney general supported the orders of the PHC and Ombudsman in question and said the ombudsman had acted in accordance with the powers assigned to him under the law.

The bench observed that the high court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction could disregard any order of the federal ombudsman found to be outside the domain of his jurisdiction.

It added that the law clearly indicated that the jurisdiction of the federal ombudsman was expressly excluded in case of personal grievances of public servants or functionaries serving in any division, ministry, agency and corporation.