Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 261627
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Ali Waheed Khan vs Fop etc
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 261627. In this matter between Ali Waheed Khan and Fop etc, 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: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas DECISION DATE: 25-MAY-2026 CASE NO: Writ Petition-4837-2025 CITATION: 2026 IHC 261627 PARTIES: Ali Waheed Khan VS Fop etc LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Miscelleneous, Other REMARKS: Petitioner a BPS-19 of Customs is aggrieved that through open merit he was selected as trade counselor Geneva But now his appointment has been cavelled. Seeks poling. . ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 1. WRIT PETITION NO. 4837 OF 2025 ALI WAHEED KHAN VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND ANOTHER 2. WRIT PETITION NO. 4842 OF 2025 ESSAM ANWAR KHOKHAR VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND ANOTHER 3. WRIT PETITION NO. 4843 OF 2025 ASIM REHMAN VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND ANOTHER 4. WRIT PETITION NO. 4844 OF 2025 KHAN BAHADUR WATOO VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND ANOTHER 5. WRIT PETITION NO. 4897 OF 2025 SYED FAWAD ALI SHAH VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE 6. WRIT PETITION NO. 486 OF 2026 FAHAD ALI CHAUDHARY VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND ANOTHER 7. WRIT PETITION NO. 5523 OF 2025 INAYAT MALIK VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND OTHERS 8. WRIT PETITION NO. 1351 OF 2026 ASIM REHMAN AND OTHERS VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND ANOTHER
2 Writ Petitions No.4837, 4842 to 4844, 4897 of 2025, 486 of 2026, 5523 of 2025, 1351 and 902 of 2026.
9. WRIT PETITION NO. 902 OF 2026 INAYAT MALIK VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND OTHERS
Petitioners by: M/s Kashif Ali Malik, Qaisar Abbas Gondal, Barrister Gul Share Ali Advocates in writ petition No. 4837/2025. M/s Barrister M. Saad Buttar, Muiz Gul, Tahir Hussain Anchan, Barrister Danyal Sohail and Muhammad Fayaz, Advocates in writ petitions No. 4842, 4843 and 4844 of 2025, 1351 of 2026. Mr. Syed Hasnain Ibrahim Kazmi and Mr. M. Saleem Iqbal, Advocates in writ petitions No. 4897 of 2025. Mr. Misbah ul Mustafa Safeer, Advocate in writ petition No. 486 of 2026. Mr. Hassan Ali Khan Advocate in writ petition No. 5523 of 2025 and 902 of 2026. Respondents No. 1 and 2 by: Mr. Fahad Khan Tareen, AAG along with Kashif Manzoor Malik J.S. (HRM) and Israr Mashal Khan S.O. (T.O-I) Ministry of Commerce. Respondent No.3 by: Qazi Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate. (In writ petitions No.5523/2025 and 902/2026.) ASSISTED BY: Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi, Judicial Law Clerk and Muhammad Fahad Research Intern. DATE OF HEARING: 12.05.2026
INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J.- This common judgment shall decide the afore- titled writ petitions, as they involve similar questions of law and facts. 2. In first six (06) afore-titled writ petitions from Sr. No. 1 to 6, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 13.11.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, whereby the petitioners’ representations were dismissed. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to complete all remaining formalities, including the issuance of the final appointment letter and diplomatic passports, to enable the petitioners to assume their posts abroad. 3. In the writ petitions listed at serial No. 8 i.e. W.P. No. 1351/2026, the petitioners, in addition to the afore-referred prayers, have also sought a 3 Writ Petitions No.4837, 4842 to 4844, 4897 of 2025, 486 of 2026, 5523 of 2025, 1351 and 902 of 2026.
declaration that the decision of re-advertisement of the vacant post pertaining to the Trade and Investment Officers for Trade Missions abroad approved by the Competent Authority (Prime Minister) vide summary dated 22.12.2025 (“Impugned Decision”) is without lawful authority and no legal effect. 4. In the writ petition listed at serial No. 7 i.e., W.P. No. 5523/2025, the petitioner, Inayat Malik approached this court seeking the direction to the respondents to fill the vacant positions from waiting list as per 2024 Policy Guidelines, and writ petition listed at serial No. 9 i.e., W.P. No. 902/2026, he again approached this court to declare the Impugned decision being illegal. 5. The common facts in these petitions are that the Respondent Ministry, vide advertisement dated 05.12.2024, invited applications from officers (BS-18 to BS-20) as well as private-sector candidates for appointment as Trade and Investment Officers at Pakistan’s Trade Missions abroad, clearly stipulating the eligibility criteria and the prescribed selection mechanism. In furtherance thereof, comprehensive Policy Guidelines dated 17.12.2024 (“2024 Policy”) were duly notified, providing that applications would be shortlisted by a Selection Committee constituted by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, followed by a Written Test and Psychometric Test carrying 60% weightage, and an Interview by a duly constituted Interview Board carrying the remaining 40% weightage. The Policy further mandated the preparation of a merit-based final list for submission to the Honourable Competent Authority for approval, the allocation of stations to successful candidates strictly in order of merit, and the maintenance of a waiting list to meet any subsequent contingencies. In pursuance of the said process, the Petitioners were duly shortlisted, granted a No Objection Certificate by the Federal Board of Revenue on 23.12.2024, successfully cleared the written and psychometric tests conducted at LUMS on 05.01.2025 and 18.01.2025, respectively, and was thereafter interviewed on 30.01.2025. Upon successful completion of all stages, a final list of 28 selected candidates was submitted to and approved by the Honourable Competent Authority. Consequent upon approval and acceptance of the provisional offer by the Competent Authority, the Respondent Ministry, vide Office Memorandum dated 16.04.2025, directed the Federal Board of Revenue to relieve the selected officers for mandatory training at the Pakistan Institute of Trade & Development 4 Writ Petitions No.4837, 4842 to 4844, 4897 of 2025, 486 of 2026, 5523 of 2025, 1351 and 902 of 2026.
(PITAD), which the petitioners duly attended and successfully completed. Simultaneously, the Respondent Ministry initiated further pre-departure steps by seeking options regarding transportation of household effects, determination of diplomatic status, and banking details, all of which were promptly furnished by the Petitioners, thereby demonstrating substantial and irreversible progress towards their foreign posting. Despite lapse of more than three months after completion of training, the Respondents inexplicably failed to undertake further routine and ministerial pre-departure formalities, including issuance of the final appointment letter and diplomatic passport, while similarly placed candidates were processed and posted, leaving the Petitioners in an unexplained state of limbo. Repeated grievances, including a detailed representations, elicited no response, compelling the Petitioners to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. During the proceedings, the Respondents for the first time attributed the delay to undisclosed adverse vetting reports, whereupon this Court, vide Order dated 17.09.2025 in Writ Petition No. 3411/2025, directed the Respondents to decide the Petitioner’s representations after affording due hearing and in accordance with settled law, however the Respondent Ministry dismissed their representations through the Impugned Order, based on secret intelligence reports, in manifest violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. The facts in writ petition No. 5523/2025 listed at serial No. 7 are that the petitioner also applied for the same programme, passed the Written and Psychometric Tests, appeared in the interview. The Petitioner was shortlisted and appeared in the interview on 30.01.2025. A final list of 28 selected candidates along with a Waiting List inclusive of the Petitioner was approved by the Prime Minister. Upon one selected candidate, Mr. Khurram, declining his provisional offer for Baghdad, the vacancy was offered to Mr. Zeeshan Asif from the Waiting List; however, Mr. Zeeshan Asif was suspended on 14.07.2025 and Efficiency & Discipline proceedings were initiated against him, rendering him ineligible for foreign posting under the 2024 Policy. Despite this, the Respondent Ministry issued him a Final Appointment Letter on 29.07.2025. When the Petitioner sought information, the Ministry replied on 10.12.2025 that the selection cycle remained incomplete. Aggrieved by the appointment of an ineligible candidate and the Ministry’s failure to consider the next eligible candidate on the Waiting List, the Petitioner has preferred the instant petition. 5 Writ Petitions No.4837, 4842 to 4844, 4897 of 2025, 486 of 2026, 5523 of 2025, 1351 and 902 of 2026.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Impugned Order has been passed in patent violation of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2025, whereby the matter was remanded with a categorical mandate to decide the same within a stipulated period in light of the settled law cited therein. However, instead of undertaking an independent and reasoned determination, the respondent merely reproduced and converted the reports earlier placed before the Court into the Impugned Order, without any meaningful application of mind or adherence to the binding directions. Furthermore, the contents of the Special Vetting Agencies reports were neither disclosed nor confronted to the petitioners, in direct contravention of the remand order, nor was any reference made to the cited precedents, rendering the exercise perfunctory and legally unsustainable. Learned counsels submitted that the Impugned Order is further vitiated by non-compliance with Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (“GCA 1897”), as it lacks clarity of reasons, fails to identify any deficiency in the petitioner’s service records or performances, and rests solely upon a bare “not suitable” recommendation, the contents whereof were neither known to the Respondents nor supported by any disclosed material. They argued that it is well settled that reasons must be intelligible, based on cogent material, and capable of satisfying the test of a reasonable person; reliance on undisclosed and unverified intelligence inputs amounts to hearsay and conjecture, which has consistently been deprecated by the superior Courts. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondents have acted in violation of the settled principles of natural justice by failing to confront the petitioners with the adverse material relied upon, thereby denying them a fair opportunity of defence in breach of Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution. The non-disclosure of such material renders it legally worthless and incapable of forming the basis of any adverse action. The Impugned Order also reflects an impermissible exercise of unfettered discretion, whereby the respondents have assumed unbridled authority to disregard the entire structured selection process, including written examinations, psychometric assessments, interviews by a high-powered board, and final approval by the competent authority, and instead substitute it with an unreasoned reliance on intelligence reports. Such discretion is required to be structured through transparent procedures, reasons, and objective criteria, all of which are conspicuously absent 6 Writ Petitions No.4837, 4842 to 4844, 4897 of 2025, 486 of 2026, 5523 of 2025, 1351 and 902 of 2026.
in the present case. Learned counsels submitted that the petitioners have successfully completed the prescribed process, secured approval, and accepted their appointments, and thus acquired vested rights and a legitimate expectation to be posted in accordance with the governing policy, which does not contemplate reliance on undisclosed vetting reports or deviation from the prescribed procedure. The selective and inconsistent application of such criteria, including instances where similarly placed candidates have been appointed despite adverse recommendations, further establishes discrimination in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The reliance on inapplicable statutory instruments upon intelligence agencies to effectively veto a duly completed selection process not only undermines the rule of law but also constitutes a colorable exercise of power. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order, being arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of fundamental rights, is liable to be set aside. 9. In addition to the above submissions, Barrister Saad Buttar on the issue of the Impugned Decision, contended that the same is ex facie arbitrary and suffers from a fundamental legal infirmity inasmuch as it is a non-speaking order, rendered in clear violation of Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 as well as the settled dicta of the superior Courts, which mandate that every administrative or executive action adversely affecting rights must be supported by cogent reasons. He submitted that paragraph 38 of the summary neither discloses the nature of the posts sought to be re-advertised nor clarifies whether such posts pertain to those already held or offered to the petitioners, thereby rendering the approval a nullity in the eyes of law. Furthermore, the respondents have failed to disclose the complete summary despite repeated requests and have instead furnished only selective extracts, including a concluding paragraph and a portion proposing withdrawal of provisional offer letters, without any supporting reasoning or material. Such partial and opaque disclosure not only defeats the very purpose of a reasoned decision but also infringes the petitioners’ fundamental right to information under Article 19A of the Constitution. He argued that the absence of reasons demonstrates that the decision to re-advertise posts already subject to pending litigation before this Court has been taken without lawful authority and is against the principle of lis pendes. It was further submitted that the Impugned Decision violates the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, and the fundamental right to a fair trial 7 Writ Petitions No.4837, 4842 to 4844, 4897 of 2025, 486 of 2026, 5523 of 2025, 1351 and 902 of 2026.
guaranteed under Article 10A of the Constitution, as the Petitioners were afforded no opportunity of hearing prior to the adverse decision. The action of the Respondents also infringes Articles 25 and 19A of the Constitution and is liable to be struck down on this score alone. The Petitioners, having successfully undergone a rigorous selection process, secured approval from the competent authority, accepted their offers, and completed mandatory training, had acquired vested rights which could not lawfully be rescinded in view of the principle of locus poenitentiae read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The impugned action further violates the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as the Petitioners were led to reasonably expect appointment in accordance with the 2024 Policy, which does not contemplate re-advertisement after completion of the selection process and instead provides for a waiting list mechanism. The arbitrary departure from the Policy, coupled with discriminatory treatment whereby similarly placed candidates have been allowed to proceed while the Petitioners have been singled out, reflects mala fide intent and colourable exercise of authority. The Respondents’ conduct, including non-disclosure of the Impugned decision based on summary during court proceedings, failure to follow due process under the Rules of Business, and attempts to undermine pending judicial proceedings, further vitiates the impugned action. In these circumstances, the Impugned decision based on summary is not only illegal and without lawful authority but also violative of the Petitioners’ fundamental and vested rights, and thus liable to be set aside. 10. Mr. Hassan Ali Khan appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petitions at serial No. 7 and 9 contended that the Impugned Decision is in patent violation of the Rules of Business, 1973 which mandate that no important policy decision may be taken except with the approval of the Competent Authority (Prime Minister), and further obligate that any illegality or deviation from law or policy be expressly pointed out to the competent authority. However, in the instant case, the Ministry of Commerce initiated and processed the summary in clear derogation of the Policy Guidelines dated 17.12.2024 by unlawfully bypassing the mandatory mechanism for appointment from the waiting list, thereby fettering its own discretion and misrepresenting material facts before the Competent Authority (Prime Minister). He submitted that the summary failed to comply with Paragraph 49(i) of Appendix E to the Secretariat Instructions, 2021, 8 Writ Petitions No.4837, 4842 to 4844, 4897 of 2025, 486 of 2026, 5523 of 2025, 1351 and 902 of 2026.
as it neither presented a complete, objective and self-contained statement of facts nor disclosed that a duly approved waiting list existed which was required to be exhausted strictly on merit. Consequently, the approval dated 22.12.2025 stands vitiated by non-disclosure of crucial facts. He argued that the subject matter of the summary squarely fell within the domain of the Establishment Division, and in the absence of mandatory prior consultation as required under Rules 8 and 11 of the Rules of Business and Instructions 31 and 38 of the Secretariat Instructions, the entire exercise is rendered ultra vires the Constitution and without lawful authority, particularly in view of the admitted disagreement of the Establishment Division regarding re-advertisement of posts without completion of the ongoing recruitment cycle. 11. Mr. Hassan Ali further submitted that the Policy Guidelines dated 17.12.2024 do not envisage re-advertisement of posts prior to exhaustion of the waiting list, nor does the Impugned Decision disclose any lawful authority for such deviation, rendering the same arbitrary and liable to be set aside in terms of binding precedent since the same is against the settled law laid down by the superior Courts, including the principle that vacancies arising during a recruitment cycle must be filled from the existing merit list and cannot be carried forward or subjected to a fresh process, thereby conferring a vested right upon the petitioner for appointment once the vacancy arose. He also argued that the respondents have bypassed the mandatory consultation requirement, suppressed material facts, and acted in disregard of prescribed procedure, which demonstrates apparent bias and mala fide, thereby vitiating the entire decision- making process. Lastly, he submitted that the petitioner has been subjected to discrimination which is a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution, as similarly placed candidates have either been appointed or considered, whereas the petitioner has been unlawfully excluded through an irregular and procedurally defective process and in these circumstances, the Impugned Decision is without jurisdiction, lawful authority, and liable to be declared void ab initio. 12. On the other side, the respondents vehemently denied the contentions of the petitioners and contended that the entire process was concluded strictly in accordance with the law and the provisional offer letter dated 07.04.2025 for posting as Trade and Investment Officer to Pakistan Trade Mission Abroad 9 Writ Petitions No.4837, 4842 to 4844, 4897 of 2025, 486 of 2026, 5523 of 2025, 1351 and 902 of 2026.
clearly contains the conditions of security vetting performa and as per the security agency, the petitioners were declared not suitable for posting abroad and the respondents have no powers to over role, interfere with, or ignore such assessment and further contended that the competent authority rightly passed the order for re-advertisement and finally prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. Moreover, the learned AAG raised an objection that the aforetitled writ petitions are not maintainable on the ground that the matter is related to internal administrative function and executive policy domain, and the petitioners are civil servant, the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution is also attracted. 13. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 14. Before entering upon the merits of the matter, it is necessary to first address the objection as to the maintainability raised by the learned Assistant Attorney General who contended that these petitions are not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the matter pertains to internal administrative functioning, executive policy domain, and interdepartmental processing of a summary before the competent authority. He further contended that no vested, accrued, or indefeasible right has been created in favour of the petitioners, and the provisional offer letters were conditional in nature and subject to fulfilment of codal formalities, including security clearance and administrative approval. There is no cavil to the principle that the Courts should exercise restraint and defer in matters of policy and security.1 The reason being that the policy and administrative issues (often referred to as polycentric issues) requiring specialized expertise are left to the discretion of competent authorities who are better positioned to record opinions on such matters, and courts should exercise restraint on such matters; however, these are subject to judicial review if any glaring illegality or violation of fundamental rights exists.2 Moreover, this Court in the case of Muhammad Irfan Wahid vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and another, (2024 PLC (C.S.) 556) has held:-
1 Muhammad Azam v. Province of Punjab etc., (2022 CLC 532), Muhammad Umais v. Cantonment Board Rawalpindi and others, (PLD 2022 Lahore 148) and Syed Faisal Mehboob v. Federation of Pakistan and others, (2022 CLC 1153) 2 Ibid 10 Writ Petitions No.4837, 4842 to 4844, 4897 of 2025, 486 of 2026, 5523 of 2025, 1351 and 902 of 2026.
“It is trite law that matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of a civil service are to be dealt with by the Service Tribunal constituted under Service Tribunal Act, 1973 pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution and no court, including this Court, can exercise jurisdiction in such matters. It is also an established law that transfer and posting is a term and condition of service and case law relied upon by the respondents is apt and instructive. Reference can be made to cases reported as Altaf Hussain Khuhro and 3 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 6 others (2023 SCMR 796) and Dr. Muhammad Saleem v. Government of Balochistan and others (2023 SCMR 2119), however, the facts, in the instant case, are different and it is not a matter of transfer and posting within the meaning of the concept as provided in section 10 of Civil Servants Act, 1973. In somewhat similar circumstances, a challenge was made to the appointments of civil servants at Trade Missions Abroad through a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution in case reported as Sajid Mehmood Raja and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others [2013 PLC (C.S.) 864] and an objection was raised regarding maintainability of petition, which was dealt with by this Court in paragraph-17 of the judgment and opined that since the petitioners who are civil servants are seeking remedy of being posted abroad on the basis of policy, which did not form part of terms and conditions of service, hence the petitions are not for implementation of terms and conditions of service, therefore, bar under Article 212 of the Constitution had no application in the present case; the petitions were held to be maintainable… The Lahore High Court, in case reported as Dr. Masood Saleem v.…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.