LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has upheld the Punjab Public Service Commission’s (PPSC) policy of shortlisting candidates for interviews at a ratio of one to five in the Provincial Management Service (PMS) Ministerial Quota recruitment.

Justice Malik Awais Khalid issued a verdict dismissing a set of connected petitions filed by Muhammad Naeem and dozens of other candidates who had qualified the written examination but were not shortlisted for interviews under the prescribed ratio.

The petitioners had challenged Regulation 28(b) of the PPSC Regulations, 2022, as well as an important note contained in Advertisement No. 38/2024, which provided that the candidates qualifying the written examination would be called for interviews at a ratio of 1:5 (one vacancy and five candidates).

The petitioners argued that after securing the prescribed qualifying marks -- 40pc in each paper and 50pc in aggregate -- they had acquired a vested right to be called for interviews. They contended that the PPSC had unlawfully restricted the number of candidates by applying the 1:5 ratio.

The petitioners further argued that the amendment to Regulation 28(b), introducing the interview ratio, had never been published in the official gazette and therefore could not be enforced.

They also alleged discrimination, claiming that candidates in previous PMS Ministerial Quota examinations who had obtained the qualifying marks were called for interviews without such shortlisting.

According to details, the PPSC had advertised 21 posts of PMS (Ministerial Quota). Although the petitioners successfully cleared both phases of the written examination, only 106 candidates were shortlisted for interviews in accordance with the advertised 1:5 ratio.

Opposing the petitions, the lawyers for the provincial government and the PPSC argued that the interview criterion had been expressly mentioned in the advertisement from the outset and formed part of the recruitment process.

They maintained that the petitioners had accepted all terms and conditions before submitting their applications and participating in the examination.

They further argued that obtaining the minimum qualifying marks did not create an enforceable right to be called for an interview, but merely made a candidate eligible for further consideration in accordance with the advertised selection criteria.

In his judgment, Justice Khalid held that the condition regarding the 1:5 interview ratio had been clearly incorporated in the advertisement and was known to every candidate before the recruitment process commenced. He observed that candidates who voluntarily participate in a recruitment process with full knowledge of its conditions cannot subsequently challenge those conditions merely because the outcome is unfavourable.

The judge noted that such conduct attracts the legal principles of “estoppel, waiver and acquiescence,” preventing candidates from questioning the very process they had accepted. He ruled that securing the minimum marks merely renders a candidate eligible for further consideration and does not create a vested right to proceed to the interview stage where additional selection criteria have been prescribed.

The judge also observed that matters relating to recruitment, shortlisting and selection primarily fall within the administrative domain of the PPSC. He explained that judicial review is limited to examining cases involving illegality, mala fide, arbitrariness or violation of law, none of which had been established by the petitioners.

Finding no legal infirmity in the impugned regulation, the advertisement or the interview shortlisting criteria, Justice Khalid dismissed all the petitions.

Published in Dawn, July 11th, 2026