Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: Const. P. 460/2026 (SHC)
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Const. P. 460/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana - Abdul Ghaffar Jatoi (Petitioner)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as Const. P. 460/2026 (SHC). In this matter between Const. P. 460/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana - Abdul Ghaffar Jatoi (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. 460/2026 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana CITATION: 2026 SHC LAR 1373 PARTIES: Abdul Ghaffar Jatoi (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 23-JUN-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Riazat Ali Sahar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ali Haider 'Ada' A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA
Before: Mr. JUSTICE RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, Mr. JUSTICE ALI HAIDER ‘ADA’,
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 [Abdul Ghaffar Jatoi v. Province of Sindh & Others]
RIAZAT ALI SAHAR, J.- The brief background of the present petition is that upon the completion of tenure of the former Chairperson of the Sindh Public Service Commission, the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, through Notification dated 14 -05- 2026, directed Respondent No. 9, who was serving as a Senior Member of the Commission, to assume charge of the offi ce of Chairperson. It is the case of the petitioner that such assumption of charge is alien to Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. Abdul Qudoos Jatoi, Advocate along with petitioner.
Counsels/ Representatives for Respondents:
Mr. Liaquat Ali Shar, Addl. Advocate General with ample assistance provided by Mr.Mohsin Ali Khan, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh.
Mr. Riaz Hussain Khoso, Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan.
Mr. Sarfaraz Ali Maitlo, Advocate for Respondent No.09 & Mr. Asif Hussain M. Nawaz Chandio, Advocate for Respondent No.08.
M/s Nisar Ahmed Memon, Controller Exams. SPSC and Muhammad Isahaque, Deputy Controller, SPSC.
Date of Hearing and Judgment:
23.06.2026
JUDGMENT
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 2 the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022 and the Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2022, which prescribe a spe cific and exclusive mode for appointment of the Chairperson. Despite the absence of a lawful appointment, Respondent No. 9 has continued to perform the functions of Chairperson and has exercised statutory powers, including but not limited to announcement o f result of examinations, giving rise to the present constitutional petition. Thus, seeking following relief:
a. “Declare that the impugned notification dated 14 -05- 2026, issued through the office of the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, whereby Respondent No.8 was directed to assume charge of the office of Chairperson, SPSC, is unconstitutional, ultra vires the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022 and the Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2022, without lawful authority and of no legal effect;
b. Set aside , recall, quash and/or strike down the impugned notification dated 14-05-2026;
c. Declare that the Results/Press Releases dated 25 -05- 2026, purportedly issued, approved and/or announced under the auth ority of Respondent No. 9 while acting as Chairperson, Sindh Public Service Commission, is without lawful authority, coram non judice, of no legal effect, and liable to be recalled, set aside and quashed.
d. Declare that all decisions, approvals, recommendat ions, notifications, results, press releases, administrative orders and consequential actions undertaken by Respondent No. 9 exclusively in the purported capacity of Chairperson, Sindh Public Service Commission, are without lawful authority and liable to be declared void ab initio.
e. Restrain Respondent No.8 permanently from acting as, functioning as, or holding himself out as Chairperson, Sindh Public Service Commission unless and until lawfully appointed strictly in accordance with the Act and Rules;
f. Declare that the office of Chairperson, SPSC can only be filled through the statutory process prescribed by Section 4 of the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022 read with the Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2022, and that no concept of assumption of charge, acting charge, look -after
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 3 charge, current charge or officiating arrangement can be used to occupy the said office in derogation of the statute;
g. Direct Respondents No. 1 to 5 to initiate and complete forthwith the appointment process for Chairperson, SPSC strictly in accordance with the 2022 Act and the 2022 Rules, within a period to be specified by this Honourable Court;
h. Direct Respondent No. 6 (Chairman, National Accountability Bureau) and Respondent No . 7 (Director General, Anti -Corruption Establishment, Sindh) to conduct an independent, transparent and lawful inquiry/investigation into the affairs of the Sindh Public Service Commission during the tenure of Respondent No. 8 and the subsequent assumption of charge by Respondent No. 9, including but not limited to allegations concerning abuse of authority, favouritism, illegal appointments, unlawful exercise of statutory powers, accumulation of assets beyond known sources of income, and any other cognizable offences disclosed from the record.
i. Direct Respondents No. 6 and 7 to submit a comprehensive report before this Honourable Court regarding the assets, financial affairs, and sources of income of Respondent No. 8 and Respondent No. 9 and to ascertain whether any assets, movable or immovable, have been acquired beyond known lawful means.
j. Declare that any actions taken by Respondent No.8 exclusively in purported exercise of the office of Chairperson, SPSC are open to challenge and shall be subject to further orders of this Honourable Court;
k. Suspend impugned Notification dated 14 -05-2026 until final adjudication of the case.
l. Suspend Results/Press Releases dated 25 -05-2026 until final adjudication of the case.
m. Award costs of this petition; and
n. Grant any other just, proper and equitable relief deemed fit and proper in the circumstances. The Supreme Court’s public-appointment jurisprudence and the settled law of quo warranto support precisely this form of relief where the vice lies in incompetence of a uthority and non - observance of the statutory method.”
2. Mr. Abdul Qudoos Jatoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the office of Chairperson, Sindh Public Service Commission, is a distinct and independent statutory office created under the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022, and its
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 4 occupancy is governed exclusively by the provisions of the said Act read with the Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2022. He submitted that after the retirement of Respondent No. 8, the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, through Notification dated 14 -05-2026, purported to direct Respondent No. 9, who was admittedly appointed only as a Member of the Commission, to assume charge of the office of Chairperson . Learned counsel argued that neither the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, nor Act or the Rules recognize any concept of “acting Chairperson”, “current charge” , “look-after charge” or “assumption of charge”, and that the only lawful source of title to the o ffice of Chairperson is appointment by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister after completion of the mandatory statutory process.
3. According to the learned counsel, the impugned notification amounts to a colourable exercise of power, is ult ra vires the governing statute and has the effect of usurping a public office through an executive device unknown to law. He further submitted that Respondent No. 9, despite lacking lawful authority, has continued to perform the functions attached to the o ffice of Chairperson and has exercised substantive statutory powers, including approval and announcement of recruitment results, thereby rendering such acts coram non judice and liable to be declared void ab initio. Learned counsel maintained that the issu e involved does not pertain to the comparative suitability of any individual, but rather concerns the legality of the occupation of a public office of constitutional significance and, therefore, squarely attracts the constitutional remedy in the nature of quo warranto . He lastly submitted that the impugned arrangement strikes at the independence and integrity of the Sindh Public Service Commission, undermines public confidence in merit -based recruitment and, unless corrected, would permit the executive to circumvent mandatory statutory requirements by resorting to extra - statutory arrangements and administrative expedients.
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 5 4. Notices were issued to the respondents and, pursuant thereto, learned counsel for Respondent No. 9 representing the Sindh Public Service Commission filed objections to the maintainability of the petition on 16.06.2026. In the said reply, it was asserted that during the pendency of the proceedings, Respondent No. 9 had been duly appointe d as Chairperson, Sindh Public Service Commission, in terms of Section 4(1) and 4(4) of the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022 read with Rules 5 and 6 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2022, with the approval of the Governor of Sindh through Notification dated 12.06.2026, and that he had subsequently taken oath of office on 13.06.2026. It was further contended that the instant petition was not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution as t he petitioner had failed to establish himself as an aggrieved person and lacked locus standi. The respondent maintained that the petition, though couched as one in public interest, was founded upon vague and speculative allegations and did not identify any specific recruitment process or individual grievance. It was argued that the ad -interim order dated 10.06.2026 substantially granted the relief sought in the main petition and, therefore, was liable to be recalled. It was further asserted that rights had already accrued in favour of successful candidates and recommendations had been communicated prior to institution of the petition, thereby creating vested rights which could not be disturbed in collateral proceedings. The respondent also invoked the doctri nes of locus poenitentiae, necessity and de facto authority, contending that administrative continuity permitted interim arrangements in the absence of any express statutory prohibition and that acts performed in good faith remained protected notwithstanding any alleged procedural irregularities. It was further pleaded that the petition suffered from non -joinder of necessary parties, as numerous successful candidates whose rights were likely to be affected had not been impleaded, and that any adverse order in their absence would offend the principles of audi alteram partem and
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 6 the guarantee of fair trial embodied in Article 10 -A of the Constitution. Lastly, it was maintained that the challenge to Notification dated 14.05.2026 was misconceived, that no cause of action had accrued to the petitioner, that the sweeping relief sought regarding the invalidation of all results declared after 14.05.2026 was legally untenable, and that the petition constituted an unwarranted attempt to interfere in administrative and executive functions in the absence of any patent illegality. Consequently, dismissal of the petition and recall of the ad -interim order dated 10.06.2026 were prayed for.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for res pondents No.8 and 9, the learned Additional Advocate General with ample assistance provided by Assistant Advocate General , Sindh, and the officers of the Sindh Public Service Commission present before the Court . This Court vide order dated 16.06.2026 took notice of the fact that, pursuant to the earlier order dated 10.06.2026, Respondent No. 9, namely Mr. Rizwan Ahmed, along with the Secretary and Controller of Examinations, SPSC, had appeared before the Court. The Court further observed that despite specific directions, the Additional Chief Secretary, Sindh, had failed to appear and, consequently, a Show Cause Notice was directed to be issued to him , but no one appeared on behalf of Chief Secretary, Sindh, though he was called upon through his Additional Secretary, on such state of affairs this Court has shown displeasure. During the proceedings, the learned Additional Advocate General produced Notification dated 12.06.2026 whereby Respondent No. 9 had been appointed as Chairperson, SPSC, on a regular basis under Section 4 of the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022 read with Rules 5 and 6 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2022. Upon tentative consideration of the controversy involved, this Court found that important constitutional and statutory questions arose concerning the legality of the appointment of the look -after Chairperson, the legal status of actions taken by the Commission
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 7 during the intervening period, and the statutory framework governing the functioning of the Commission in the absence of a duly appointed Chairperson. Accordingly, the Court framed the following questions for determination:
(i) Whether the appointment of the look -after/ caretaker Chairperson, made vide Notification dated 1 4.05.2026, was in conformity with Article 242(1B) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and the relevant provisions of law governing the Commission?
(ii) In the event that the aforesaid appointment is found to be without lawful au thority, what would be the legal status of the Commission during the intervening period from 17.05.2026 to 13.06.2026 (after taking oath of Chairperson under the Constitution)?
(iii) Whether examinations, tests, interviews, recommendations, declarations, or announcements of results made during the aforesaid intervening period are liable to be declared without lawful authority and consequently void ab initio?
(iv) Whether any Rule, Regulation, Policy, Standing Orders, Notifications, Administrative Instructions, or other statutory instruments are in force within the Sindh Public Service Commission governing the distribution, delegation, and discharge of powers, functions, and duties amongst the Chairperson, Secretary, Controller, Deputy Controller, and other officers of the Commission? If so, the respondents shall place the same on record.
(v) Whether the internal and external business of the Commission is regulated by any statutory Rules, Regulations, Policies, or administrative framework, and if so, what is the distinction between the powers exercisable under such Rules and those exercisable under the Regulations governing the affairs of the Commission?
(vi) Whether any Rule, Regulation, or other statutory provisions authorize the Secretary, Contro ller, Deputy Controller, or any other officer of the Commission to independently perform, supervise, approve, or authorize any recruitment -related activity, examination, interview, recommendation, declaration, or announcement of results in the absence of a duly appointed Chairperson?
(vii) Whether there exists any provision in law enabling the Commission to continue its statutory and constitutional functions during a vacancy in the office of Chairperson, and if so, the respondents shall identify the relevant provision(s) and place the supporting record before the Court as there is no provision in the
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 8 Constitution of Pakistan with regard to any acting Chairperson of SPSC; however, there is certain Articles of the Constitution reflecting status of the acting Chairperson of the constitu tional institution / assignment / post.
6. Before adverting to the framed questions, it may be observed that the objection of locus standi cannot detain the Court for long. Where the source of title to a public office is impugned, the matter falls within the recognised field of quo warranto , and th e strict requirement of personal aggrievement is materially relaxed. The Supreme Court has held that, for a writ in the nature of quo warranto, any person may bring into question the authority by which a public office is held, because the real concern is n ot a private right but the legality of occupation of a public office. The same constitutional current runs through the public -law holdings in Hafiz Hamdullah v. Saifullah Khan (PLD 2007 SC 52 ) and Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 SC 416 ).
7. The first question is whether the appointment of the so - called look -after/caretaker Chairperson, made vide notification dated 14.05.2026, was in conformity with Article 242(1B) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the governing law. The answer, in our respectful view, is in the negative.
8. Article 242(1B) of the Constitution expressly provides that the Chairperson of a Provincial Public Service Commission shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister. Article 242(2) further provides that the Commission shall perform such functions as may be prescribed by law. Thus, the Constitution itself constitutionali zes both the office and the mode of appointment. It does not leave the source of title to executive improvisation.
9. The Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022 is wholly in line with the constitutional command. Section 3 establishes the Sindh Public Service Commission and provides
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 9 that it shall consist of a Chairperson and such number of Members as the Chief Minister may determine. Section 4(1) states that the Governor, on the advice of the Chief Minister, shall appoint the Chairperson, while the Chief Minister shall appoint the Members. Section 4(4) prescribes tenure, and its proviso states only th at nothing therein debars a Member from becoming a Chairperson during the pendency of his term in case the office of Chairperson falls vacant. That proviso cannot be read as creating an automatic or interim assumption of office; rather, it merely preserves eligibility for appointment. Section 5 then mandates that, before entering upon office, the Chairperson shall take oath in the prescribed form before the Governor.
10. The Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2022 reinforce the same position. Rule 3 requires appointment in accordance with section 4 of the Act; Rule 5 creates a Permanent High Powered Committee; and Rule 6 requires that the Committee recommend a panel of at least three persons, whereafter the Chi ef Minister may interview the recommended candidates and recommend the appropriate person as Chairperson to the Governor, and only upon approval is the appointment to be notified.
11. The impugned notification dated 14.05.2026, issued through the Chief Secretary, bypassed every one of these mandatory constitutional and statutory steps. It did not emanate from the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister after completion of the prescribed process. It was not preceded by the recommendation of the High Powered Committee. It did not result in a lawful appointment. Nor could it substitute the mandatory oath contemplated by section 5 of the Act. The expression “assume charge” as employed in the notification is, therefore, no source of legal authority to occ upy the constitutional office of Chairperson.
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 10 It is also significant that the Constitution expressly creates “acting” arrangements where the framers intend to do so. By way of illustration, the Constitution separately provides for an Acting President of P akistan and for acting office -holders in other constitutional settings, including an Acting Chief Election Commissioner under Article 217 and Acting Chief Justices under the constitutional scheme relating to the superior courts. The presence of such expres s provisions elsewhere, and their complete absence in Article 242 and in the governing SPSC statute and rules, is a strong indicator that no analogous “acting Chairperson”, “look -after charge”, “current charge” or “caretaker Chairperson” is recognised for the SPSC. Where the Constitution or statute says a thing shall be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner alone.
12. The independence of constitutional institutions is not preserved by ad hoc executive arrangements but by fidelity to the method prescribed by the Constitution and by law. The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored that constitutional institutions must be insulated from informal or extra -legal executive control, and that appointments touching institutional independence must adhere to the constitutionally prescribed path. That principle is reflected in Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pa kistan (PLD 1996 SC 324) and in Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 SC 879).
13. We therefore hold that the notification dated 14.05.2026, whereby Respondent No. 9 was directed to assume charge as Chairperson, SPSC, was without lawful authority, contrary to Article 242(1B) of the Constitution, ultra vires the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022 and contrary to the Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2022. It conferred no d e jure title to the office of Chairperson.
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 11 14. At the same time, since Respondent No. 9 has subsequently been appointed on a regular basis vide notification dated 12.06.2026 and took oath on 13.06.2026, his present incumbency is not under challenge befor e us on the footing of the impugned look -after arrangement; the illegality found herein attaches to the interregnum arrangement alone. The matter, therefore, is not rendered infructuous, because the legal status of the impugned notification and of actions taken during that interregnum still falls for declaration.
15. The second question is: if the aforesaid arrangement is held without lawful authority, what was the legal status of the Commission during the intervening period from 17.05.2026 to 13.06.2026? The Commission, as a statutory constitutional institution, did not cease to exist merely because the office of Chairperson fell vacant. Section 3 of the Act establishes the Commission itself. Thus, the institution survived; its secretariat, records, branch es and accumulated proceedings also survived. But the existence of the institution is one thing, and the lawful exercise of powers specifically reserved to the Chairperson or to the Commission acting through a legally constituted decision -making chain is a nother.
16. The material placed on record demonstrates that the functioning of SPSC is not left to an undefined administrative field. The statutory framework consists of the Act of 2022, the Appointment Rules of 2022, the Functions Rules of 2022, and th e Recruitment Management Regulations, 2023. In addition, the respondents rely upon an “internal Compendium ” and related internal arrangements. The statutory instruments and the RMR show a structured division between policy and final approval at the level o f the Chairperson / Commission on the one hand and ministerial, preparatory, supervisory and channel -of-business functions at the level of the secretariat and field officers on the other.
C.P No. D-460 of 2026 12 17. Thus, during the interregnum, the Commission remained in exis tence as an institution, but it could not lawfully be treated as having a duly appointed Chairperson by reason of an extra -statutory order of “assumption of charge”. The proper legal characterisation is that the institution continued, routine ministerial a nd preservatory work could continue, but any act that, under the statute or governing framework, required a lawful Chairperson’s approval, constitution, nomination, leadership or final authorisation was exposed to legal defect.
18. This conclusion is con sistent with constitutional method. It preserves the continuity of the institution without validating an office-holder unknown to law. It also accords with remedial restraint in Pakistani public law, where the Court may declare an act unconstitutional whil e calibrating the consequences in light of institutional continuity and public interest, as seen in Federation of Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan (PLD 1989 SC 166).
19. We would add, in explicit terms, that neither the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, nor the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022, nor the Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.