BANNU: The Peshawar High Court, Bannu bench, on Saturday dismissed a petition challenging the appointment of the secretary (BPS-19) of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) Bannu on deputation, while allowing the petitioner to challenge any fresh recruitment process in accordance with the law.

The bench comprising Justice Muhammad Tariq Afridi and Justice Sabitullah Khan announced the verdict.

The petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan by Muhammad Farooq Khan, a BPS-18 officer serving in BISE Bannu.

The petitioner contended that being an MBA (Finance) graduate with extensive experience in various key positions within the board, he was eligible for promotion to the post of secretary (BPS-19).

He challenged the May 30, 2018, notification, under which Nek Nawaz, a BPS-19 principal, was appointed as Secretary of BISE Bannu on deputation for a period of three years.

The petitioner requested the court to stop the practice of appointing officers from outside the board on deputation and instead direct the authorities to promote eligible in-service board employees in line with judicial precedents.

During the proceedings, the petitioner was represented by Inayatullah Khan (via video link), Sardar Naeem Khan and Ikramullah Khan Marwat. The government was represented by assistant advocate general (AAG) Muhammad Asghar Khan Ahmadzai, while Pir Hameedullah Shah, advocate, appeared for respondent No. 5, and Matiullah Jan, advocate, represented BISE Bannu.

After examining the record, the high court observed that the deputation appointment challenged by the petitioner had already expired long ago, as the three-year tenure of the appointed officer had ended and he was no longer serving as secretary.

The court noted that the petitioner had failed to establish that he had been subjected to discrimination or that any of his legal rights had been violated.

Regarding the board’s subsequent advertisement for filling the secretary’s post again through deputation, the bench observed that the fresh recruitment process had commenced after the filing of the present petition and was therefore not part of the case before the court.

It held that if the petitioner had any grievance against the new recruitment process, he was at liberty to challenge it separately through appropriate legal proceedings.

Published in Dawn, July 5th, 2026