KARACHI: Censuring poor governance within the Services, General Administration and Coordination Department (SGA&CD), the Sindh High Court (SHC) noted that vacancies left unaddressed in public institutions foster ad-hocism, informal delegation and opacity, which in turn open the door to nepotism and favouritism.
The SHC also observed that such practices not only corrode the principles of merit and transparency but also offend the guarantees of equality and equal protection as provided in the Constitution.
A two-judge constitutional bench of the SHC, headed by Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, further said that nepotism and favouritism strike at the heart of constitutional morality and transform public office from a position of trust into a tool of patronage, thereby weakening institutional integrity and eroding public confidence in the fairness of the system.
Failure to fill vacancies without lawful justification not only diminishes institutional performance but also undermines the confidence of civil servants and the public alike, the bench added.
Bench observes govt failure to fill vacancies without lawful justification diminishes institutional performance, undermines public confidence
The bench made these observations while hearing a contempt application filed against the SGA&CD secretary and others for not implementing an order of the SHC to decide seniority and promotion dates of 18 mukhtiarkars/petitioners within four months in the light of two reported judgments of the Supreme Court (SC).
Initially, the petitioners filed a petition in 2024, claiming that their colleagues were granted the benefit of promotion to the next higher grade as assistant commissioners (ACs) from the date the vacancies for such posts occurred, but they were denied such relief.
The SHC had decided the matter in March last year, but the respondents/alleged contemnors did not comply with the directions, and the petitioners filed an application seeking contempt proceedings.
The bench in its order said that after being put on notice, the SGA&CD secretary stated that the order had been complied with in its letter and spirit. However, counsel for petitioners vehemently objected to the report and contended that it was nothing but an eyewash to defeat the orders passed by the SHC and the apex court.
Thereafter, the bench stated that the SGA&CD secretary was directed to furnish a fresh report about the vacancy position on relevant dates and decide the seniority issue of the petitioners, and consequently, he apprised the court that not a single seat was available under the promotion quota at the time of induction of assistant commissioner through initial appointments.
He further informed the court that the representation of petitioners was declined by the chief secretary and therefore, the appeal was filed before the Sindh chief minister, who directed the services department to re-verify the vacancy position as well as the eligibility of petitioners for their promotion.
The bench also noted that, as per the order of the chief minister, there were 22 vacancy positions of ACs available against promotion quota in 2019, and when confronted with such a situation regarding the availability of vacant posts under promotion quota, the secretary of the services again sought time for compliance.
It further observed that the secretary services again filed a report which reflected that a vacancy against promotion quota for ACs occurred in the year 2022/2023, thus the departmental promotion committee (DPC) met in August 2023, and eligible mukhtiarkars were promoted as ACs.
Since the report was seriously disputed by petitioners, a three-member committee was constituted by the bench to examine the case of the petitioners and furnish its report, while the committee found various anomalies at the end of SGA&CD in the promotion matters.
The bench in its order said, “Perusal of committee’s report reflected a gloomy picture of bad governance within services wing of SGA&CD. Services Department being custodian of all the employees is required to safeguard the interest of each employee working under any set up in civil service of Government of Sindh.”
As per the record, it also noted that in January 2019, 16 seats of ACs fell vacant under promotion quota, and DPC was not held to consider the promotion of petitioners.
The bench further observed that the civil bureaucracy was meant to be the steel frame of the state and not a rubber stamp, and to perform its role effectively, the civil service must remain free from any interference as its independence, integrity and intellectual honesty were essential to sustaining the rule of law and the Constitution.
It is not advisable to keep a post in civil service vacant for an elongated period of time as it hampers the functioning of public institutions and is not conducive to the maintenance of efficiency of administration, it added.
The bench said, “Vacancies left unaddressed foster ad-hocism, informal delegation, and opacity, which in turn open the door to nepotism and favouritism. Such practices not only corrode the principles of merit and transparency but also offend the guarantees of equality before law and equal protection of law under Articles 4 and 25, as well as the constitutional injunction of Article 27 that no citizen shall be discriminated against in appointments to the service of Pakistan.”
“Nepotism and favouritism strike at the heart of constitutional morality; they transform public office from a position of trust into a tool of patronage, thereby weakening institutional integrity and eroding public confidence in the fairness of the system,” it added.
It also noted that the mala fides of the services department itself spoke that for a considerable period, it played with the process of the court and filed misleading reports, and the committee constituted by the court also showed its displeasure with the affairs of the services wing of SGA&CD.
While holding the secretary services responsible for deliberately defying court orders and avoiding to implement the same, the bench said that it was a clear contempt of court’s orders, but at the request of an additional advocate general as well as assurance, the court was not proceeding against the contemnors.
Published in Dawn, June 28th, 2026