Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 452
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Const. P. 1942/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Sheeraz (Petitioner)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 452. In this matter between Const. P. 1942/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Sheeraz (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 1942/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 452 PARTIES: Sheeraz (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 25-FEB-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
CP No.D-1942 of 2025 (Sheeraz v Province of Sindh & others)
__________________________________________________________________ __ DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE Before:- Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi
Date of hearing and order:- 25.02.2026
Mr. Sarfraz Ali Metlo, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar, Advocate for respondents Nos 2 and 3. Mr. Abdul Jalil, A.A.G. ---------------
O R D E R Adnan-ul-Karim Memon , J At the initial stage, l earned Counsel for the Petit ioners submitted that the process conducted by the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) for the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) BPS-17 in Works & Services Department, Education Works, School Education & Literacy Department, and Assistant Executive En gineer (Civil) BPS -17 in Local Government Department was illegal, discriminatory, and conducted with mala fide intentions. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in CCE-2013, learned counsel highlighted similar irregularities, including undue delays in declaration of results, disproportionate interview marks, and lack of transparency in the interview evaluation. He added that i n the present case, the written test was conducted on 21 -02-2023, results were issued on 11 -06- 2024, and t he final merit list after interviews on 18 -02-2025, reflecting an excessive delay of over 1.5 years. Moreover, candidates with lower written scores were awarded disproportionately high interview marks, while those with higher written marks, including the p etitioner, were unfairly disadvantaged. It is submitted that SPSC has consistently exhibited unfair practices in past recruitments (CCE-2013, CCE-2018, CCE-2020), undermining its credibility. The petitioners asserted that these actions violated their fundamental rights , and the Court may exercise its jurisdiction to suspend the impugned merit lists, restrain appointments, and direct re -conduction of interviews with proper recording and assessment. He prayed to allow the petition. 2. Learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 and 3 submitted that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative remedy under Regulation 161 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment, Management,
Regulations 2023), which he did not invoke. He emphasized that interviews are inherently subjective tests, and courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of the interview board, citing Muhammad Ashraf Sangri vs Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 157) and other precedents. It is further submitted that the wri t jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked when an alternative statutory remedy exists, and the petitioners’ claims could have been addressed through representation and appeal to the Chairperson and Appellate Committee of SPSC. The respondents counsel argued that the petitioner is not entitled to equitable relief, relying on Rehmatullah v. Saleh Khan and Muhammad Haroon v. Province of Sindh , emphasizing that extraordinary jurisdiction may not be misused to challenge subjective evaluations or delay t he administrative process unnecessarily. In light of these submissions, respondents counsel sought dismissal of the petition. 3. In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents, the Court observes that while the petit ion raises concerns regarding alleged irregularities and delays in the SPSC recruitment process, the petitioners ha s an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy available under Regulation 161 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment, Management, Regulations 2023), which he has not invoked. 4. At the same time, the petitioners ha s sought that his memorandum of petition be treated as a representation under Regulation 161, and the competent authority/Chairman of SPSC be directed to decide the ma tter within a period of fourteen (14) days. This request seems to be reasonable. 5. The Court finds this approach to be both appropriate and in accordance with the law, ensuring that the petitioners’ grievances are addressed through the statutory mechanis m without undermining the subjectivity and discretion of the interview process. 6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with the direction that the memo of petition shall be treated as a Representation under Regulation 161 , and the Chairman, Sindh Public Service Commission or Appellate committee shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law within fourteen (14) days. A copy of this Order along with memo of petition shall be forwarded and communicated to the Chairman, SPSC, for compliance.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Shafi