PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court on Tuesday rejected a plea, challenging laws for appointment of federal and provincial law officers.

A bench consisting of Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Inamullah Khan pronounced its order after completion of arguments of lawyers appearing for petitioners and government.

The petition was jointly filed by lawyers Sulaman Khan and Noorul Bassar, claiming that appointments of law officers in the offices of attorney general for Pakistan and advocate general were contrary to merit.

The petitioners requested the court to declare Central Law Officers Ordinance 1970 and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Appointment of Law Officers Act, 2014, inconsistent and in conflict with the Constitution of Pakistan and against the fundamental rights of people at large.

Petitioners claim such recruitment made on political grounds

They also sought directives of the court for federal and provincial governments to make appointments purely on merit.

The respondents in the petition were federal government through its law secretary, attorney general for Pakistan, KP government through its chief secretary, KP law secretary and KP advocate general.

The petitioners’ counsel contended that the appointment of law officers was made on political grounds, which was an illegal act. He stated that there was no transparent, merit-based and permanent mechanism in place for the appointment of law officers.

He claimed that deputy, additional and assistant attorneys general were appointed without any merit and any advertisement, test and interview, under Central Law Officers Ordinance 1970. In similar manner, he stated, deputy, additional and assistant advocates general were appointed under KP Appointment of Law Officers Act, 2014, contrary to merit.

He contended that all the appointments against the said posts should be made on merit by giving opportunity to eligible candidates to compete and participate in the process of written test and interview. He argued that appointments without open advertisement, written tests and interviews were against the due process of law and access to justice to all.

The assistant advocate general, Bilal Khalil, rebutted the petitioners’ arguments and contended that the appointment of law officers by federal and provincial governments was carried out in accordance with law.

He argued that law officers in advocate general office fully met the legal criteria established for those appointments.

The AAG stated that specific eligibility criteria had been laid down in KP Appointment of Law Officers Act, which was not contrary to any provision of the Constitution.

He also referred to the eligibility conditions given in the law for the posts of deputy, additional and assistant advocates general, stating that none of the present law officers were appointed in contravention of those conditions. He contended that the petitioners were not aggrieved persons in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution and the instant petition was not maintainable.

During course of hearing, Justice Ijaz Anwar questioned the petitioners’ counsel about which of the law officer was appointed illegally. The judge also remarked whichever government came into power it appointed law officers of its own choice.

The counsel insisted that appointment of law officers should not be made on political grounds. He said that competent and senior lawyers should be appointed against those posts.

Published in Dawn, May 20th, 2026