HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Sindh High Court Hyderabad circuit on Thursday set aside the orders passed by the Member (Appeals) of the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) and instructed the commission’s chairman to appoint the Member (Appeals) with legal field’s experience.

The bench, comprising Justice Mohammad Saleem Jessar and Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, heard the case and passed the order while Justice Bhanbhro authored the 15-page order. It was announced today (Thursday).

The order was passed on two separate petitions. Dr Manjhee Jatoi and 13 others were represented by Aayatullah Khawaja and Pervez Tagar advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Saba Anwar. Additional AG Sindh Ismail Bhutto represented the Sindh government while Raja Ali Wahid and Zahoor Chadhar advocates the SPSC.

Petitioners’ case was that 227 candidates, including the petitioners, qualified a written test and they were called for an interview. The SPSC announced results on Aug 12 in which the petitioners’ names were not included as successful candidates, although they answered all questions satisfactorily. They filed representation under Regulation 161 of Recruitment & Management Regulations 2023 (RMR) which were dismissed during pendency of petitions.

Their counsel said actions of the SPSC were based on mala fide intentions from its very beginning as the written test result was announced and revised before the interview. Despite directives by the high and apex courts, the SPSC didn’t announce the complete result of interview and only announced names of the successful candidates.

The bench noted the petitioners’ representations shall be deemed pending. The bench said the Member (Appeals) so appointed by the SSPC chairman shall decide representations of the petitioners in true spirit of provisions of Regulation 161 of the SPSC after providing ample opportunity of hearing to all concerned as per law.

Referencing to SHC’s June 3, 2021 order by a bench of which one of the present judges (Justice Jessar) was also a member, the division bench noted Regulation 161 was not framed in accordance with directives given in June 3 order as it conferred powers on the chairman to appoint the Member (Appeals) and Appellate Committee to decide the fate of appeals by aggrieved candidates. Therefore, it can be safely said that Regulation 161 was in complete violation of well settled doctrine, ‘no one can be judge of his own cause’.

“In our view the Commission by exercising its powers should revise Regulation 161 and give powers of Member (Appeals) to any member having experience in legal field as issues involved in representations are legal in nature while Appellate Committee should be neutral forum and in this regard SPSC may seek assistance of Sindh law department and appoint Appellate Committee to decide appeals.”

The court ordered the Member (Appeals) that he shall call a member of the interview panel (Dr Mubarak Ali Jatoi) and enquire from him about irregularities during the interview process, if any, and shall also compare with marking list given by the said expert/member interviewing panel with marking incorporated in final tabulation sheet of candidates. The petitioners who have not earlier filed representation may file it before the SPSC in one week.

The court’s order said if the Member (Appeals), after completion of aforesaid exercise, finds that there are discrepancies in markings, he/she then shall declare final result in respect of the subject post as null and void and order for conducting fresh interviews after constitution of a new interviewer panel, comprising on members/experts duly nominated by the SPSC.

However, said the order, after examination and hearing the parties, if the Member (Appeals) finds result sheet provided by expert/member (Dr Mubarak Jatoi) is according to tabulation drawn by the SPSC then result and recommendation announced by the SPSC through letter of Aug 12, 2025 shall be deemed to have been issued as per law and administrative department shall act accordingly. The exercise shall be completed in 30 days.

AAG Bhutto, assisted by the assistant AG, questioned maintainability of the petition, arguing that only eight petitioners preferred representations out of which only four appeared before the authority while four didn’t turn up.

The bench observed that one of the interview panel’s members, Dr Mubarak Jatoi (DG Sindh livestock) and a respondent in the petition, recorded his reservations on the recommendations for the Aug 12 appointment orders on the subject post through social media posts. The SPSC in its reply didn’t deny his statement posted on social media and Dr Jatoi also didn’t deny assertions of the petitioners in its reply to the petition.

Both respondent the DG and SPSC gave evasive denial to the petition’s contents. It said if any assertion in the plaint was denied evasively, it amounted to admission.

Published in Dawn, November 21st, 2025