Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199, 4, 9, 14, 18, 25(1), 38

Law: Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974

Section: Rule 9(4)

  Summary The petitioner challenged multiple government notifications assigning additional charge of various public offices to private respondents, claiming these appointments violated service rules and constitutional provisions. He sought issuance of a writ of quo warranto arguing that the respondents were unlawfully occupying public offices without proper authority. The Court analyzed: The legality of temporary or stop-gap appointments under Rule 9(4) of Sindh Civil Servants (APT) Rules, 1974. Whether the petitioner had locus standi and bona fide interest. The principles of quo warranto as per precedent, which allows the court to inquire whether a public office is held lawfully. Findings: The private respondents held additional charges as stop-gap arrangements for posts lying vacant, which was permissible under the APT Rules. Petitioner failed to show that the appointments violated rules, that a substitute officer was available, or that he had personal legal injury. The petitions were also barred by res judicata, as a similar petition (CP No.D-5882/2025) had already been dismissed. Writ of quo warranto requires proof of usurpation, incompetence of authority, or violation of procedure—none of which were shown. Decision: All petitions dismissed, including pending applications. Sections / Rules Used Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – High Court jurisdiction to issue writs, including quo warranto. Articles 4, 9, 14, 18, 25(1), 38 – Fundamental rights cited by petitioner. Rule 9(4), Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974 – Governs stop-gap or temporary appointments. Doctrine of Res Judicata – Prevents multiple litigation on same subject matter. Two 2-Word Descriptions Public Office Quo Warranto O R D E R  Since all the captioned petitions involve common questions of law and fact, we propose to decide them through a single order.   In all the captioned petitions, the petitioner has challenged Notifications dated 15th September 2025, 06th November 2025, 11th November 2025, 1st September 2025, 2nd September 2025 & 9th October, 2025, whereby   private respondents have…