ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Friday ruled that all government appointing authorities, including statutory bodies and government-owned or controlled organisations, must ensure the timely preparation, maintenance and circulation of seniority lists for every service, cadre or post immediately after every fresh recruitment, promotion, regularisation or any change affecting seniority.
Headed by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, a two-judge FCC bench, also comprising Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, held that such appointing authorities must review and update seniority lists every January.
The updated lists must not only be circulated among all concerned officials but also uploaded and regularly updated on the official websites of the respective departments, according to the 16-page judgement authored by Justice Rizvi.
The directions were issued while accepting an appeal filed by Capt Muhammad Ali Khan against the Port Qasim Authority. The FCC not only set aside the PQA seniority list, which had placed the petitioner junior to colleagues Capt Syed Muhammad Irfan and Capt Shaikh Naeemuddin despite his higher merit position, but also directed the authority to issue a revised seniority list in line with the court’s determination.
Restores Port Qasim officer’s seniority
The FCC also observed that contractual conditions inconsistent with statutory rules or public policy cannot override rights conferred by law.
The controversy arose when Capt Khan, along with colleagues Capt Irfan and Capt Naeemuddin, was appointed as Pilot/Tug Commander (BS-19) in the PQA pursuant to an ad issued on July 24, 2009. Following written tests and interviews, the departmental selection committee assigned merit positions, placing Capt Khan third, while his two colleagues were placed fourth and fifth, respectively.
However, the two colleagues joined duty on Oct 9, 2009, whereas Capt Khan joined a day later, on Oct 10, 2009. After more than seven years of regular service, the PQA issued a seniority list on Dec 26, 2019, placing the two colleagues above Capt Khan solely on the basis of their joining date while ignoring the committee’s assigned merit.
The core legal question before the FCC was whether the inter se seniority of officers appointed through a single selection process should be determined by merit assigned by the selection committee or by the date of joining.
Capt Khan challenged the seniority list before the Sindh High Court, which dismissed the petition on Aug 30, 2022, holding that seniority should be reckoned from the date of joining and that the appellant had filed objections belatedly.
In the judgement, Justice Rizvi observed that many government departments, including statutory bodies and government-owned or controlled organisations, followed the undesirable practice of either not issuing updated seniority lists regularly or failing to revise them promptly after promotions or fresh recruitment.
In the present case, it noted, the provisional seniority list was issued more than seven years after the appellant’s regularisation.
Such inaction often results in avoidable disputes, particularly when promotion cases arise, leading to unnecessary litigation and administrative uncertainty, it observed.
“The timely preparation, revision and circulation of seniority lists is not a mere formality; rather, it is an essential component of transparent and fair service administration,” the judgement stated.
It added that timely seniority lists ensure clarity in the service structure, safeguard officers’ rights and minimise the risk of arbitrariness and favouritism.
Failure to maintain and communicate updated seniority positions undermines institutional efficiency and erodes officers’ confidence in the system.
The judgement emphasised that in the era of digital governance, there was no justification for withholding such information from officers or the public.
The right to access information relating to public affairs, including the service structure of government departments, is guaranteed under Article 19A of the Constitution, it added.
The maintenance and disclosure of updated seniority lists are not matters of administrative discretion or grace, but legal obligations flowing from the constitutional mandate of transparency, according to the judgement.
The FCC held that the high court had failed to properly comprehend the intent and object of the relevant laws and had instead misconstrued and misinterpreted them, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
The court also directed its office to send copies of the verdict to all chief secretaries as well as the secretary of the establishment division for dissemination among all administrative departments to ensure uniform compliance with the directions in letter and spirit.
Published in Dawn, May 23rd, 2026