Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

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

Section: 9(4)

Summary: The High Court dismissed the constitutional petitions, holding that the additional charge appointments were valid stop-gap arrangements under the service rules, the petitioner failed to establish grounds for a writ of quo warranto, and the petitions were also barred by res judicata. Sections Used: Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Rule 9(4), Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974 2-Word Description: Quo Warranto Service Appointments 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 been allowed to hold additional charge of the posts respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner in all the captioned petitions had filed an application for urgent hearing, which is granted. Counsel was confronted as to the maintainability of the captioned petitions by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2025. Learned Counsel contended that the private respondents are unlawfully occupying public offices in blatant violation of the rules and regulations framed by the legislature, thereby defeating the very spirit of justice. It was urged that such appointments are in direct conflict with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Province of Sindh and others V Ghulam Fareed and others (2015 SCMR 456), Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others V. Ghulam Shabir and others (2023 SCMR 686), as well as the pronouncements of this court in numerous cases. Learned counsel submitted that Honorable Supreme Court has consistently discouraged appointments on OPS basis. It was further argued that a perusal of the relevant record and notifications clearly revealed that private respondents derived illegal gains through impugned notifications by holding additional charge, without following any prescribed method of transfer or posting. Such illegal benefits, having…