HYDERABAD: A division bench of the Sindh High Court has set out eight key questions to be resolved regarding the appointment of three general managers at the Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority (Sida). The chief secretary has been ordered to submit a formal response to the court’s inquiries.

The hearing has been adjourned for three weeks, with the bench directing counsel for the respondents and the Sindh additional advocate general to assist the court with the points raised.

The court is considering two separate petitions brought by Syed Mohammad Ali Shah and Asmatullah, along with 24 other petitioners, represented by advocates Syed Saulat Rizvi and Syed Mohammad Mehdi.

The petitioners, who are employees of Sida, have challenged the appointments of Sajjad Ali Soomro as general manager (Operations), Dr Ali Asghar Mahesar as general manager (Research & Development), and Mohammad Siddiqui as general manager (Transition).

Petitioners allege nepotism, violation of Sindh Water Management Ordinance

The petitioners in CP-253/2025 have described the appointments as illegal and a breach of the Sindh Water Management Ordinance (SWMO) 2002. They contend that, despite a two-decade delay, Sida has failed to establish and formalise its service regulations, thereby depriving staff of their legal rights regarding promotion, career progression and pensions.

The petitioners argued that, in the absence of a statutory framework, any new appointments — particularly to senior roles — were arbitrary and unlawful. They claimed the recruitment process was riddled with procedural irregularities, alleging that a lack of transparency and nepotism had “tainted” the selection. Furthermore, they stated that an appointment had been made to a post already occupied by another official, resulting in a duplication of roles and an unnecessary burden on the public purse.

The petitioners in CP-3691/2024 argued that, as qualified professionals who had served Sida for many years, their careers had remained stagnant. They claimed that despite their long service — and having been granted permanent contracts following previous litigation — the authority’s failure to formalise service rules for more than 20 years had blocked their progression. They further alleged that draft regulations had been prepared but were left unapproved without any valid justification.

Rather than addressing these structural illegalities, the petitioners claimed that Sida initiated a fresh recruitment drive for senior BS-19/20 posts. They argued that these roles are permanent in nature and should have been filled via internal promotion. By advertising externally, the authority has effectively stifled the staff’s “legitimate expectation” of career progression, while further procedural irregularities have also been highlighted.

Counsel for the Sida managing director and the general managers argued in CP-253/2025 that the petition was not maintainable. They contended that the appointments were made in accordance with the law and had received the full approval of the Sida Board following a transparent selection process. Furthermore, they stated that the successful candidates were the most qualified for the roles. The defence argued that the recruitments were a response to an acute shortage of senior management during the critical World Bank-funded projects, warning that any judicial interference would jeopardise the execution of these initiatives.

In their rebuttal, the counsel for the opponent petitioners argued that the appointments were “patently illegal” and made in bad faith. They pointed out that while the advertisements specified a one-year contractual tenure — with the exception of the GM Transition — the appointments were actually granted for two years, representing an unlawful deviation from the advertised terms. Furthermore, they contended that Sida failed to obtain the mandatory prior concurrence of the Sindh government, a procedural failure they argued had vitiated the entire recruitment process.

The bench, in its May 4 order, noted that allegations concerning a lack of transparency and procedural irregularities required further examination, observing that even a single material irregularity could invalidate the entire recruitment process. After hearing both sides, the bench — comprising Justice Adnanul Karim Memon and Mr Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi — directed the parties to assist the court in determining whether the appointments complied with the law, specifically the SWMO 2002, or were marred by illegality and bad faith. The court further sought to establish whether Sida’s alleged failure to formalise service regulations under governing legislation renders the appointments void and without lawful authority.

The court questioned whether the recruitment process was fundamentally flawed due to alleged procedural irregularities. These include a lack of transparency, the participation of “proxies” in interviews, and accusations of nepotism.

Furthermore, the bench sought to determine if the inconsistency between the advertised and offered contractual terms, along with other alleged deviations from protocol, had served to invalidate the entire process.

The court said whether recruitment process was vitiated on account of alleged procedural irregularities including lack of transparency, participation of proxies in interviews, nepotism, inconsistency in advertised and offered terms or other alleged deviations.

Published in Dawn, May 8th, 2026