PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Thursday ordered reinstatement of public universities’ employees terminated under the law enacted by the provincial government for removing employees appointed during the last caretaker government.

A bench consisting of Justice Naeem Anwar and Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel accepted around a dozen petitions filed by employees from different public universities, who were appointed when the province had a caretaker government, against the provincial government’s decision to apply the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Removal from Service) Act, 2025, to them.

The law was made to terminate employees from certain categories who were recruited before the 2024 general elections.

“The petitioners are reinstated into services with all back benefits. The impugned proceedings, including the decision/recommendations seeking to bring the petitioners’ appointments within the purview of Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Removal from Service) Act, 2025, in so far as founded solely upon the fact that the recruitment process was completed during the caretaker period, are declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect,” the bench ruled in its 40-page detailed judgement.

Court accepts pleas of terminated employees recruited during caretaker govt

It added that the impugned Cabinet Committee proceedings from August 13, 2025, and a letter issued on September 2, 2025, to the extent they seek to subject the petitioners’ appointment in autonomous public universities to the Removal Act, 2025, without establishing the statutory ingredients contemplated by Section 3 thereof were set aside.

“The respondents are consequently restrained from taking any adverse action against the petitioners under Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Removal from Service) Act, 2025, merely on the ground that the recruitment process or any of its stages took place during the tenure of the caretaker Government, unless otherwise permissible under an independent and applicable provision of law,” it declared.

After discussing multiple points related to the matter in detail, the bench declared that the petitioners were not appointed by the caretaker government and that the appointments were processed through the university’s own selection board or committee and approved by the syndicate.

It added that the university itself had substantially acknowledged that position.

“The fact that some stage of the recruitment process was completed during the caretaker period does not, by itself, convert an autonomous statutory appointment into an appointment made by the caretaker government,” it noted.

The bench declared that public universities possessed a distinct statutory identity and enjoyed academic, administrative and financial autonomy within the framework of law.

“The respondents have failed to establish the essential statutory ingredients necessary for attracting Section 3 of the Removal Act, 2025, particularly an appointment made in contravention of Section 230 of the Elections Act, 2017. The Anomaly Committee and Cabinet Committee could not, by administrative proceedings or recommendations, enlarge the scope of the Removal Act, 2025, or assume jurisdiction over appointments validly made by the competent statutory authorities of autonomous universities,” it declared.

The judgement authored by Justice Kamran Hayat Miankhel also said the impugned proceedings, insofar as they sought to apply Section 3 of the Removal Act, 2025, to the petitioners merely because their recruitment process coincided with the caretaker period, were without lawful authority and couldn’t be sustained.

The petitioners included Dr Komal Aman, a lecturer at Women’s University Mardan, and several other university employees.

The petitioners were appointed to teaching, administrative, technical, ministerial and support staff positions through a recruitment process mostly completed during the tenure of the provincial caretaker government.

The provincial government later enacted that law, leading to the formation of an “anomaly committee”. Information regarding appointments made during the caretaker period was later sought from public universities.

The universities maintained that the appointments were made through their statutory authorities and the universities being autonomous didn’t fall within the mischief of the legislation.

Despite that, the matter was considered at different administrative levels and ultimately a Cabinet Committee meeting was held on Aug 13, 2025, followed by a letter of Sept 2, 2025, addressed to the secretary of the higher education department for terminating the employees recruited during the caretaker government’s tenure.

Lawyers Shumail Ahmad Butt, Jehanzeb Mehsud, Shamsul Hadi, Ali Gohar Durrani, Khalid Rehman, Zahid Aman, Asif Yousafzai and others appeared for the petitioners. They argued that the Act in question was not applicable to the petitioners as their appointments were made by the statutory authorities of the universities through a lawful and merit-based process and not by the caretaker government.

They argued that public universities were autonomous institutions having no nexus with the electoral process or political appointments contemplated under Section 230 of the Elections Act.

The counsel contended that the petitioners were appointed after a lawful and transparent recruitment process initiated through advertisements, mostly issued prior to setting up of the caretaker government.

The bench thoroughly discussed the provisions of the Removal Act, Universities Act and Elections Act, and pointed out that Section 230 of the Elections Act restricted the caretaker government from taking major policy decisions including appointments.

It, however, noted that there were certain distinctions to be made among appointments made by the caretaker government, recruitment made by a government department or functionary acting under the authority of the caretaker government and an appointment made independently by a statutory autonomous body pursuant to its own governing rule.

The bench ruled that the case of the petitioners fell in the third category as the recruitment process was undertaken by the universities.

“There is no material before this court showing that the caretaker chief minister, cabinet, minister, secretary or any other functionary of the caretaker government issued an appointment order in favour of the petitioners,” it observed.

The court added that mere concurrence of the period of consideration or completion of recruitment with the caretaker period didn’t transform an autonomous statutory appointment into a government appointment.

Published in Dawn, September 11th, 2026