Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 774 2026 SLD 774 = 2026 SHC 68
Sindh High Court
CP No.D-5962 of 2025/ CP No.D-5963 of 2025/ CP No.D-5964 of 2025 /CP No.D-5965 of 2025/ CP No.D-5966 of 2025 /CP No.D-5967 of 2025 / CP No.D-5968 of 2025/ CP No.D-5969 of 2025 /CP No.D-5970 of 2025
Presented By: Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro
M/s. Imtiaz Ali Solangi and Muhammad Ajmal Solangi, Advocates for the petitioner in all petitions Mr. Abdul Jalil A. Zubedi, Assistant Advocate General Date of hearing and order:      20.01.2026

Muhammad Sohail Ali

VS

Province of Sindh and others Muhammad Sohail Ali vs Province of Sindh and others Muhammad Sohail Ali vs Province of Sindh and others Muhammad Sohail Ali vs Province of Sindh and others Muhammad Sohail Ali vs Province of Sindh and others Muhammad Sohail Ali vs Province of Sindh and others Muhammad Sohail Ali vs Province of Sindh and others Muhammad Sohail Ali vs Province of Sindh and others Muhammad Sohail Ali vs Province of Sindh and others Muhammad Sohail Ali vs Province of Sindh and others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

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

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

Section:

Case Summary: Petitioner: Muhammad Sohail Ali Respondents: The Province of Sindh and others Nature of Petition: The petitioner challenged several notifications issued between 1st September 2025 and 11th November 2025, whereby private respondents were assigned additional charge of public offices (BS-17 to BS-20 posts). He alleged these appointments violated the law, rules, and fundamental rights, seeking writs in the nature of quo warranto. Petitioner’s Claims: Appointments on additional charge were illegal and arbitrary. Violations of Articles 4, 9, 14, 18, 25(1), 38 of the Constitution. Private respondents unlawfully occupying public offices without lawful authority. Appointments conflicted with Supreme Court judgments discouraging OPS (on-post-service) appointments. Respondents’ Argument: Appointments were temporary/stop-gap in nature under Rule 9(4) of Sindh Civil Servants (APT) Rules, 1974. Notifications made by competent authority; no mala fide action. Petitioner lacked locus standi and intended to harass appointees. Court Findings: Posts were vacant, and stop-gap arrangements were legally permissible. Petitioner had filed similar petition CP No.D-5882/2025 (principle of Res Judicata applied). No illegality or mala fide found in notifications; petitioner failed to prove unlawful occupation. Quo warranto requires showing: The office is public/substantive. Appointment by an unauthorized person (usurper). Prescribed law/rules not followed. Petitioner failed to demonstrate these conditions; petitions dismissed. Sections / Articles Used: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: Article 199 – High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction for writs. Article 4 – Right to protection from arbitrary action. Article 9 – Right to life and liberty. Article 14 – Dignity of person. Article 18 – Freedom of trade, business, profession. Article 25(1) – Equality before law. Article 38 – Promotion of social justice and welfare. Service Rules: Sindh Civil Servants (APT) Rules, 1974, Rule 9(4) – Stop-gap/temporary appointments. Legal Principles: Quo warranto – Inquiry into legality of public office holder. Res Judicata…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register