LARKANA: A division bench of Sindh High Court’s Larkana circuit has issued a notice to the additional chief secretary of Sindh for failing to appear before it as per its direction.
The bench, comprising Justice Riazat Ali Sahar and Justice Ali Haider Ada was seized with a constitutional petition (No. D-460/2026) questioning merit and transparency supposed to be adhered to in the appointment of the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) chairman.
Expressing its displeasure over the absence of the additional chief secretary at the hearing of the case, the bench noted that in pursuance of the order dated June 10, 2026, SPSC Chairman Rizwan Ahmed, along with the commission’s secretary and controller, is present before the court, but no one has appeared on behalf of the additional chief secretary (ACS).
The ACS was strictly directed to appear in person, but he has disregarded the order of this court, the bench remarked, and issue a show-cause notice to the ACS.
The matter was adjourned to June 23.
Petition challenging appointment of SPSC chairman deferred to June 23
In his petition, Abdul Ghaffar Jatoi, through his counsel Abdul Qudoos Jatoi, has submitted that the SPSC is a constitutional body entrusted with the important responsibility of selecting and recommending suitable candidates for appointment to the public services in the province by following the principle of transparency and fairness. Any perceived irregularity in the recruitment process may adversely affect the efficiency and credibility of public institutions.
The petitioner contended that the appointment of the look-after / caretaker chairperson of the SPSC was not made in accordance with law and, therefore, questions arise regarding the legality of the functioning of the commission during the relevant period.
Additional Advocate General (AAG) produced certain documents, including the relevant notification dated June 12, 2026 issued by the competent authority, whereby senior SPSC member has been appointed as its chairperson on a regular basis for his remaining period, in view of Section 4 of the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 2022, read with Rules 5 and 6 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairperson and Members) Rules, 2022.
The court had earlier observed that having heard the counsel for the petitioner, advocate general, Sindh, and the officers present in court, and upon tentative consideration of the controversy involved, the following questions arise for consideration and require assistance from the law officers and the respondents:
(i) Whether the appointment of the look-after / caretaker chairperson, made vide notification dated May 14, 2026, was in conformity with Article 242(1B) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and the relevant provisions of law governing the commission?
(ii) In the event that the aforesaid appointment is found to be without lawful authority, what would be the legal status of the commission during the intervening period from May 17, 2026 to June 13, 2026 (after taking oath of chairperson under the Constitution)?
(iii) Whether examinations, tests, interviews, recommendations, declarations, or announcements of results made during the aforesaid intervening period are liable to be declared without lawful authority and consequently void ab initio?
(iv) Whether any rule, regulation, policy, standing orders, notifications, administrative instructions, or other statutory instruments are in force within the Sindh Public Service Commission governing the distribution, delegation, and discharge of powers, functions, and duties amongst the chairperson, secretary, controller, deputy controller, and other officers of the commission? If so, the respondents shall place the same on record.
(v) Whether the internal and external business of the commission is regulated by any statutory rules, regulations, policies, or administrative framework, and if so, what is the distinction between the powers exercisable under such rules and those exercisable under the regulations governing the affairs of the commission?
(vi) Whether any rule, regulation, or other statutory provisions authorise the secretary, controller, deputy controller, or any other officer of the commission to independently perform, supervise, approve, or authorise any recruitment-related activity, examination, test, interview, recommendation, declaration, or announcement of results in the absence of a duly appointed chairperson?
Whether there exists any provision in law enabling the commission to continue its statutory and constitutional functions during a vacancy in the office of chairperson, and if so, the respondents shall identify the relevant provision(s) and place the supporting record before the court as there is no provision in the Constitution of Pakistan with regard to any acting chairperson of SPSC; however, there is certain Articles of the Constitution reflecting status of the acting chairperson of the constitutional institution / assignment / post.
The SPSC chairman had filed objections on maintainability of the petition on behalf of the commission.
Published in Dawn, June 21st, 2026