Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2026 SHC 924. In this matter between Const. P. 279/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Zeeshan (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.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 279/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 924 PARTIES: Zeeshan (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 08-APR-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 1

ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No. D-89 of 2026 (Zeeshan & others versus Province of Sindh & others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-3427of 2022, (Izhar Hussain versus Province of Sindh & another)

Constitutional Petition No. D-940 of 2023 (Salahuddin versus Province of Sindh & others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-2172 of 2024 (Pakistan Legal United Society versus Government of Sindh & others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-1856 of 2025 (Ikramuddin versus The Government of Sindh and another)

Constitutional Petition No. D-1857 of 2025 (Sheeraz Ahmed versus The Government of Sindh and another)

Constitutional Petition No. D-1858 of 2025 (Irfan Ahmed versus The Government of Sindh and another)

Constitutional Petition No. D-1859 of 2025 (Noman Rasheed versus The Government of Sindh and another)

Constitutional Petition No. D-1241of 2026 (Muhammad Amin & others versus Province of Sindh and others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-206 of 2026 (Muhammad Shehzad & another versus Province of Sindh and others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-279 of 2026 (Zeeshan versus Province of Sindh and another)

Constitutional Petition No. D-487 of 2026 (Muhammad Yousuf Iqbal Alvi & others versus Province of Sindh and others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-961 of 2026 (Fazal Jamal versus Province of Sindh and others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-962 of 2026 (Muhammad Ghaffar versus Province of Sindh and others)

Constitutional Petition No. D-963 of 2026 (Fazal Qadir versus Province of Sindh and others)

Date Order with signature of Judge

Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Date of hearing and order: 08.4.2026

Mr. Mansoor Ali Panhwar advocate for the petitioners , CP Nos. D-89, 487, 1241, 961, 962 and 962/2026 Mr. Altaf Hussain Khoso advocate for the petitioners in C.P. Nos. D -1856, 1857, 1858 and 1859/2025 Mr. Inayatullah Lashari advocate for the petitioner in C.P. No. D-206/2026 Mr. Abdul Jalil Zubedi, AAG. Ms. Sana Abid, advocate for TMCs Mauripur, Baldi a and Moriro Mir Bahar in C.P. Nos. D-961, 962, 963 and 206/2026 Mr. Jahangir Kalhoro advocate for TMC in C.P. Nos. D -961, 962, 963 and 206/2026 Mr. Fahad Farooq advocate Mr. Abrar Hussain Soomro, advocate for the intervener Mr. Arsalan Tariq, Assistant Commissioner on behalf of Deputy Commissioner West

2

Mr. Abdul Sami, Assistant Commissioner Shah Faisal , on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner Korangi Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Ghumro, Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) East Karachi Mr. Najibullah, Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), South Karachi Mr. Abdul Hafeez, Mukhtiarkar Liaquatabad , on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner Central Karachi ---------------------

O R D E R Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J. The petitioners in all the captioned matters have invoked the constitut ional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking appointment based on a quota reserved for differently-abled persons in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. 2. After arguing the matter at some length, all parties present in Court agreed that these petitions may be disposed of in terms of the common order dated 20.03.2025 passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No. 220 -K to 442-K of 2025, available at page 797 of the Cour t file, whereby the constitutional petitions were disposed of with directions to the Government of Sindh to ensure appointments of differently-abled persons in accordance with the prescribed quota under the law. 3. In view of the settled legal position, th e grievance raised in the instant petitions stands squarely covered by authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as well as the consistent view of this Court in different petitions on the subject issue. 4. The right of differently -abled persons to be considered for public employment against the prescribed quota is no longer res integra. It is anchored in the principles of equality as provided under Article s 4, 18 , and 25 of the Constitution and further reinforced by statutory mandates r equiring the State to ensure meaningful inclusion of m arginalized segments of society. Propriety demands that the candidature of the petitioners shall be reassessed for appointment with meaningful consideration without fail. It is expected that the concerned DRCs shall not create any bottlenecks in such reassessment, for the reason that t he Supreme Court, in its recent common order dated 20.03.2025 , passed in C.P. No. 220-K to 442-K of 2025, has unequivocally reaffirmed that the quota reserved for differently-abled persons is not merely directory but obligatory in nature, and that the Government is under a legal duty to implement the same in letter and spirit. 5. The said view is in continuation of earlier authoritative pronouncements, including CPLA No. 74 5-K to 750 -K of 2022 and Civil Petition No. 966 -K to

3

971-K of 2022, wherein it was held that failure to fill such quota amounts to denial of fundamental rights and constitutes maladministration. 6. This Court, in a series of judgments, including the compo site judgment dated 10.10.2024 of the Bench at Sukkur, at the Principal seat, and earlier orders dated 29.08.2024, and judgment dated 03.2.2026 in CP. No. D-6010 of 2025 has consistently directed the authorities to undertake a transparent and merit -based exercise for the appointment of differently -abled persons strictly in accordance with the prescribed quota. The superior Courts have repeatedly emphasized that such a quota cannot be deferred, carried forward indefinitely, or frustrated through administrative inaction. 7. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that there is a mechanism under a digital job portal, and an integrated grievance redressal system to ensure the timely resolution of complaints on the subject issue, if any. He further states that the project is required to be implemented in phases, with a prototype expected by February 2026, while the job portal and grievance modules are scheduled to become operational by May and July 2026 , respectively. He adds that the initiative is grounded in the Sindh Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2018, which mandates the protection of rights and equal opportunities for persons with disabilities in education, employment, healthcare, and public life. The law also provides for the enforcement of a 5% employment quota in government departments, promotion of inclusive education, province -wide awareness campaigns, and submission of annual progress reports to ensure effective implementation and compliance. Finally, he prayed that the case of the petitio ners shall also be considered as per the law and policy of the government of Sindh. Be that as it may, this Court is only concerned with the enforcement of the judgment of the Supreme Court under Article 187(2) of the Constitution, which has neither been set aside nor suspended by the Federal Constitution al Court, and thus remains binding and enforceable. 8. Accordingly, since the controversy raised herein is fully governed by the above binding precedents, no further adjudication on merits is required. The appropriate course is to enforce compliance rather than to re -litigate settled questions of law. 9. In such circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Government of Sindh / concerned head of the DRCs to complete the requisite exercise of the appointment of the petitioners within two month, to ensure effective implementation of constitutional and legal obligations. Failure to comply within the stipulated timeframe shall entail consequences in terms of Article 204

4

of the Constitution, including exposure to departmental proceedings for non - compliance with judicial orders. 10. Resultantly, the petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, with a clear mandate to the Government of Sindh / concerned head of the DRCs to act expeditiously, fairly, and strictly in accordance with law and the binding dicta of the Supreme Court. The cases of all the petitioners / interveners shall be processed as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, within a period of two months , by following codal formalit ies. The pending applications in all petitions , along with application(s) for intervener(s), are also disposed of with directions to the parties to file an amended title within a week. Office to place a copy of this order in the connected matters. JUDGE

JUDGE

Shafi >>

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant