PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Wednesday declared as illegal and set aside appointment of an official of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, Saud Khan Gandapur, on deputation in excise, taxation and narcotics control department as head of Intelligence Bureau (IB).

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Farah Jamshed accepted a petition jointly field by several employees of excise department including Dr Azlan Aslam and others, requesting the court to declare as illegal posting on deputation of Saud Afridi, a BPS-17 officer serving as assistant director protocol in KP Assembly.

Advocate Asif Khan, appearing for the petitioners, stated that his clients were regular employees of excise and taxation department, recruited through Public Service Commission and other departmental selection boards.

He said that government had last year appointed a provincial assembly officer to the post of head of IB (excise) on deputation, despite the fact that the officer was still on probation and had not completed his mandatory service period.

Bench will release detailed judgement later

He argued that the officer was initially brought into excise department on deputation and later on appointed to a BPS-18 post as head of IB, which was illegal.

The counsel argued that relevant rules provided that posts in the department must be filled through Public Service Commission. He added that promotion to BPS-18 required prior recruitment in BPS-16 or 17 through the commission, as it was a seniority-based position.

He also referred to several judgements of superior courts in support of his contention, stating that those strictly prohibited such appointments as they infringed upon the rights of regular department employees.

He argued that rules were bypassed to facilitate the appointment, which contradicted the department’s own regulations and lacked necessary recommendations from the relevant board.

Contrary to his arguments, KP advocate general Shah Faisal Uthmankhel and lawyers for other respondents including Mr Gandapur argued that it was within the provincial government’s authority to appoint any official on deputation.

They contended that the present petition was not maintainable as the appointment was made by observing all codal formalities and legal procedures.

They questioned as to why the petitioners did not object when the initial deputation took place and had only filed the petition once the officer was promoted to BPS-18. After completion of arguments, the bench pronounced acceptance of the petition. The detailed order will be released later on.

Published in Dawn, April 9th, 2026