PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has ruled that posting on deputation is only permissible when a department requires services of an officer from other department and the same is routed through Special Selection Board (SSB).

A bench consisting of Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Farrah Jamshed, while declaring as illegal and unconstitutional appointment of an official of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly, Saud Gandapur, as assistant excise taxation officer (AETO) in excise and taxation department, ruled that the circumstances wherein the impugned appointment was made strongly suggested that the same was not made in accordance with law, but influenced by political considerations.

“It is a settled principle that deputation is an exceptional arrangement, permissible only when a department, due to exigency of service, requires to borrow the services of an officer from another department,” the bench observed in its 10-page detailed judgement.

“Such exigency may arise either when recruitment against the post is under way and no eligible candidate is available within the department, or when the post requires specialised expertise not otherwise available in the department,” the bench observed.

Declares appointment of KP Assembly official in excise dept illegal

It ruled: “Moreover, the process of deputation must be routed through special selection board (SSB), chaired by the chief secretary of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, to ensure transparency and compliance with statutory requirements.”

The bench pointed out that in the present case, the borrowing department (excise department) neither made any requisition for the services of Mr Gandapur nor did he possessed any extraordinary expertise warranting his appointment on deputation.

The bench ruled: “The absence of requisition, coupled with lack of specialised qualifications, renders the deputation process irregular and contrary to the prescribed legal framework.”

“Consequently, the legality of his appointment to a public office stands seriously undermined, and the presumption of political favouritism in the process cannot be ruled out,” it observed.

The bench maintained: “Public office is a public trust. Officers are servants of state whose authority derives from law and they must exercise that authority within its bounds. Every public officer must serve the citizenry in good faith with sheer dedication but within the peripheries of powers granted by law.”

“In solemn compliance with Article 5 of the Constitution and the oath of office, government servants are ‘servants of state’ whose duty is to obey the Constitution and serve people, not exploit their authority,” the bench observed.

It further observed: “When public officials exceed lawful limits of their authority, the result is an injustice that shakes the foundations of rule of law.”

“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice,” the bench quoted from ‘The Spirt of Laws’, famous work of French political philosopher Montesquieu.

“In a nutshell, public authorities in modern constitutional democratic states are no longer absolute arbiters of power; they are bound by the rule of law and must respect the rights guaranteed under the Constitution and applicable laws. These authorities cannot violate these rights with impunity, as accountability mechanisms are in place to ensure that any infringement upon individual liberties is subject to scrutiny and redress,” stated the judgement authored by Justice Ali.

The petition was filed by Dr Azlan Aslam and 49 other regular employees of excise, taxation and narcotics control department, challenging the appointment of Mr Gandapur on deputation in their department through a notification issued on April 22, 2024.

Advocates Mohammad Asif Yousafzai, Mian Saadullah Jandoli and Irshad Mohmand represented the petitioners, stating that according to the procedure provided for appointments against different posts in the department, six per cent of the posts of AETOs had to be filled by promotion from amongst superintendents; 54 per cent by promotion from amongst holder of the post of inspectors,; and, remaining 40 per cent by initial recruitment.

They stated that presently 24 posts were vacant out of which two were to be filled through promotion and 22 through initial recruitment. They added that the process of appointment had already been initiated by the government, hence the appointment of the respondent on deputation was illegal.

Quoting from different judgements of superior courts, the bench pointed out that the borrowing government department had to establish the exigency in the first place and then the person, who was being transferred/placed on deputation, must have matching qualifications, expertise in the field with required experience.

Published in Dawn, April 15th, 2026