PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court (PHC) on Wednesday set aside the deputation-based appointment of a Grade-17 Assistant Director Protocol of the Provincial Assembly, Saud Gandapur, who had been posted as in-charge Intelligence Bureau in the Excise Department.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Farah Jamshed heard a writ petition filed by Excise and Taxation Department employees, including Azlan and others. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners, Asif Khan, argued that his clients were recruited through the Public Service Commission and relevant departmental selection boards at different times, in accordance with the law.
He contended that the government had recently appointed an officer from the Provincial Assembly on deputation as in-charge of the IB wing in the Excise Department, despite the fact that he was still on probation and had not completed the required period. The counsel submitted that the officer was first posted in the Excise Department and later assigned as in-charge of the Intelligence Bureau on a Grade-18 post, which he termed illegal.
He maintained that the rules clearly state that such positions must be filled through the commission, and promotions to Grade-18 require prior appointment in Grade-16 or 17 through the Public Service Commission, as these are seniority-based posts. The counsel argued that recent Supreme Court rulings prohibit such appointments, as they violate the rights of other employees.
He added that any relaxation in rules for appointing an in-charge was itself contrary to departmental regulations, and that such appointments must be made based on recommendations of the relevant board, which was not done in this case.
On the other hand, the Advocate General and counsel for Saud Gandapur argued that the provincial government has the authority to make deputation appointments and that the posting was made in accordance with the Constitution and law, following due procedure.
They also questioned the maintainability of the petition, stating that the petitioners had not challenged the deputation earlier and approached the court only after the officer’s promotion to Grade-18.
