LAHORE: A writ petition filed before the Lahore High Court has assailed the Punjab Public Service Commission’s (PPSC) handling of its disabled persons’ quota, after a certified speech-disabled candidate was declared “failed” in his interview even as the reserved seat for the post was left vacant.
The petitioner-in-person, Ammar Ashraf of district Vehari, applied for a post of Electric Sub Inspector (BS-14) advertised by the Energy Department in June 2025, competing specifically for one seat reserved under the Special Persons quota.
Ashraf holds a certified disability — a neurological speech and communication disorder.
The petitioner argues he was never afforded reasonable accommodation, such as extra response time or disability-sensitive interviewing, despite the PPSC’s knowledge of his condition.
The petition notes he had already served on the very same post for nearly three years under an earlier contractual appointment that ended only because the underlying project concluded — not due to any performance issue — and that he holds a B.Sc in Electrical Engineering from UET Lahore, well above the prescribed qualification.
He qualified the written test and was interviewed on Jan 6, 2026, but was declared “fail” when the final result was announced on April 22, 2026.
The petition says, the PPSC’s own notice confirms the disabled quota seat remained vacant, citing “non-availability of candidate,” despite the petitioner being an available, eligible applicant.
He refers to a precedent set in a case “Jabbar Hussain v. PPSC”, where courts directed appointment of a visually-impaired candidate under the same quota — a ruling later upheld by the Supreme Court.
In its written reply, the PPSC has denied the allegations, maintaining that the interview was conducted fairly by a lawfully constituted panel in a conducive environment and that Ashraf simply failed to secure the mandatory 50pc interview marks required under its policy manual.
The commission has also raised a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition, arguing Ashraf should have pursued a departmental appeal under Regulation 26 before approaching the court.
However, in his rejoinder, Ashraf rejects this objection as misleading, noting the PPSC itself had already entertained and rejected his representation by email.
He argues that the alternate-remedy objection cannot bar constitutional relief where fundamental rights are at stake.
He contends that the PPSC has not explained the contradiction between calling him unavailable for the quota seat while simultaneously interviewing and failing him.
The petition seeks that the result be set aside and that the petitioner be appointed against the reserved seat.
The court would resume the hearing of the petition after summer vacation in September.
Published in Dawn, July 31st, 2026
