PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has validated a law made by the provincial government to terminate services of thousands of employees recruited during the last caretaker government in the province, declaring that the interim setup wasn’t authorised to make such appointments.

A bench consisting of Justice Mohammad Naeem Anwar and Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel rejected seven almost identical petitions filed by scores of those employees against their termination under the said law.

The petitioners had requested the court to declare illegal and unconstitutional the KP Employees (Removal from Service) Act, 2025.

After discussing different aspects of the case in detail, the bench ruled: “In light of the foregoing discussion, it is a well-settled constitutional principle that caretaker governments function merely as custodians of the state machinery and are not vested with the mandate to formulate or implement substantive policies.”

Rejects their petition, rules interim setup not allowed to make such appointments

“Their primary obligation is to ensure administrative continuity, maintain neutrality, and facilitate the conduct of free, fair and transparent elections. Any deviation from this limited mandate including permanent appointments, policy decisions, or financial undertakings with long-term implications constitutes a transgression of their constitutional boundaries.”

The court declared that such acts were susceptible to judicial scrutiny, and if found in violation of the constitutional or legal framework, they were liable to be declared ultra vires, void and of no legal effect.

Additional advocate general Taimoor Haider, who represented the provincial government, contended that the law in question was only meant for acting against those who were recruited in an illegal manner by the caretaker government and not against those appointed through a proper channel.

He added that the law had made distinction between legal and illegal appointments.

“Under the said law, action won’t be taken against those employees who were recruited in pursuance of order or judgement of a court, on the recommendations of the KP Public Service Commission, against the deceased son quota in case of death, against the minorities quota, or in cases where tests and interviews were conducted before the issuance of notification by the Election Commission of Pakistan of Jan 22, 2023, placing a ban on recruitment,” he said.

The bench ruled that the Act was duly promulgated by the competent provincial legislature within the bounds of its constitutional mandate.

It added that a careful perusal of the Act’s contents revealed that the law neither contravened nor curtailed any of the fundamental rights enshrined in Chapter I of Part II of the Constitution.

The bench declared that the legislative competence of the provincial assembly to enact such a law was well-established under the constitutional scheme, and the Act in question was a valid piece of legislation, carrying the presumption of constitutionality unless declared otherwise by a competent forum.

“The mere fact that certain individuals may be aggrieved by its consequences does not render the statute unconstitutional or ultra vires,” it noted, adding that the impugned termination orders issued under the authority of that legislation were lawful and had been passed in accordance with the principles of natural justice and due process of law.

In a 17-page detailed judgement authored by Justice Kamran Hayat, the bench discussed a caretaker government’s powers in detail.

“From a plain reading of the relevant provisions of law, it becomes abundantly clear that the primary mandate of a caretaker government is limited in scope and function. Its essential role is to manage the day-to-day affairs of the State and to facilitate the smooth and transparent transition of power from an outgoing elected government to an incoming one, following general elections,” it observed.

The bench added that the caretaker government was, by its very nature, a non-political and transitional body that lacked the constitutional and legal authority vested in a duly elected government.

It declared that caretakers’ functions were circumscribed and didn’t include the power to formulate or implement new policies, undertake long-term developmental projects, make permanent appointments (whether in civil service, public sector institutions, autonomous bodies, or corporations), or enter into binding financial or contractual commitments that might extend beyond its interim tenure or prejudice the policy choices of the future elected government.

The bench ruled that any deviation from those limitations was not only beyond its legal mandate but might also undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process.

Referring to different Supreme Court judgements, it declared that the apex court of the country had consistently emphasised that interim or caretaker arrangements must operate strictly within the four comers of law, refraining from any action that could affect the political, administrative or financial equilibrium of the state and that any overreach by a caretaker setup was liable to be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional.

“They [caretakers] must avoid taking decisions of a permanent or far reaching nature such as long-term policy formulations, contractual obligations, or appointments that could bind the hands of the incoming elected government or prejudice its authority,” the bench declared.

Published in Dawn, August 7th, 2025