2026 P L C (C.S.) 121
[Balochistan High Court (Sibi Bench)]
Before Shaukat Ali Rakhshani and Gul Hassan Tareen, JJ
MUHAMMAD RASHID and others
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA through Chief Secretary and others
Constitution Petitions Nos. (s)205 of 2024, (s)12 and (s)17 of 2025, decided on 19th June, 2025.
General Clauses Act (X of 1897) ---
----S.24- A---Employment ---Recruitment to the post of Constable ---Appointments approved and
finalized by the competent authority---Subsequent direction to re -examine entire recruitment
process passed by halting the initial recruitment process ---Legality ---Brief facts were that the
petitioners applied for the posts of Constable (BPS -07) and successfully cleared the written test,
interview, and physical assessments, and their names were duly recommended by the recruitment
committee and formally approved by the competent authority, however, before issuance of appointment orders, the AIG Police directed re -examination of the entire recruitment process for
180 posts ---Issue requiring determination before the High Court was as to “Whether the
authorities could lawfully halt and re -open the recruitment process after completion, approval,
and recommendation of the petitioners, and without issuing their appointment orders”? ---Held:
Section 24- A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 imposed a mandatory obligation upon every
executive and public authority to exercise their powers in a reasonable manner, ensuring fairness in decision making--- It implied that administrative orders should be speaking, clearly outlining
the reasons for the decision, demonstrating application of mind that aligned with the principles of justice and fairness ---Admittedly the petitioners had successfully qualified the recruitment
process and were duly recommended by the recruitment committee but despite meeting all the requirements no formal appointment letters were issued to them ---Instead respondents issued
impugned letters calling for a fresh test that too without disclosing any valid reasons that could justify the re -initiation of the entire recruitment process which was found to be arbitrary which
could not be allowed to hold field, more particularly when an indefeasible and vested right had been created in favour of the petitioners ---Impugned letters were declared null and void, having
no legal effect and the respondents were directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners ---Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary
Ministry of Finance 2015 SCMR 630 rel.
Shah Fahad Hussain Mengal for Petitioner (in C.P.(s) No.205 of 2024).
Arbab Nasiruminillah, Addl: A.G. for Respondent (in C.P. No. (s) 205 of 2024).
Abdul Wahab Buledi for Petitioner (in C.P. No. (s) 12 of 2025).
Arbab Nasiruminillah, Addl: A.G. for Respondent (in C.P. No. (s) 12 of 2025).
Muhammad Mujahid Hussain Qaisrani for Petitioner (in C.P. No. (s) 17 of 2025).
Arbab Nasiruminillah, Addl: A.G. for Respondent (in C.P. No. (s) 17 of 2025).
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. ---The petitioners have filed captioned constitutional
petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ("Constitution"), seeking annulment of impugned letters dated 13.12.2024 and 17.12.2024 respectively, whereby directions were issued by AIG Police (Establishment), Quetta ("AIG") to re-examine the recruitment process in respect of 180 selected candidates with further prayer to
direct the official respondents to issue appointments orders in favour of the petitioners in
accordance with the approval granted by Competent Authority vide letter No.53599/1(64)/E -III
dated 04.10.2024.
2. As the lis in hand is knitted with a similar thread of factual and legal controversies,
therefore, the captioned petitions are decided through this consolidated judgment.
3. Concisely stated, the petitioners in pursuance of the advertisement bearing PRQ No.373
dated 24.07.2024, applied for the posts of Constable (BPS -07) announced by AIG on district
basis, and successfully passed the test and interview, coupled with physical test (Measurement of
height -chest and Endurance) and were declared successful by the Recruitment Committee for
appointment against the posts of Constable (BPS -07) reserved for Naseerabad Range,
henceforth, their names were recommended to the Competent Authority for approval, which was accorded to vide letter No.53599/1(64)/E -III dated 04.10.2024, but their appointment orders
were not issued. In the meanwhile, the AIG vide impugned letters ibid directed to re -examine the
recruitment process for 180 posts, hence these petitions.
3. In response to the notices, issued by this Court, parawise comments were filed by the
respondents, wherein they did not controvert the facts, however, urged to justify the impugned
letters of the Competent Authority impugned herein.
4. Heard. Record scanned with the able assistance of learned counsel for adversarial parties.
In pursuance of the advertisement bearing PRQ No.373 dated 24.07.2024, applications for the
posts of Constable (BPS -07) were invited for Naseerabad Range beside other Range and District
and pursuant thereto, the petitioners duly applied under general cadre, women and minority
quotas, who were declared successful, as such DIG Naseerabad being Chairman, Recruitment
Committee forwarded the list of successful candidates from the Naseerabad Range to the Competent Authority for approval. The Competent Authority duly approved the said
recommendation vide letter No. 53599/12(64)/E -III dated 04.10.2024, but surprisingly the
petitioners were let to know that the AIG has issued impugned letter dated 13.12.2024, directing
the DIG, Internal Accountability Bureau, Quetta ("DIG IAB") to re -examine the recruitment
process of Constables from Naseerabad Range, following the said letter, the DIG, IAB issued another impugned letter dated 17.12.2024, announcing a revised schedule for the physical and written test with interview. The impugned letters dated 13.12.2024 and 17.12.2024, respectively are facsimile herein below;
"Discussed with IGP. He directed to re -examine all these selected students DIG/IAB will
supervise the examination process (both physical and written followed by interviews) and will prepare a final list of the selected candidates out of the 180 mentioned above. The process will be restricted only to the 180 selected candidates. Physical measurement will also be repeated, please."
Letter dated 17.12.2024
"In this regard undersigned has been nominated by the competent authority vide order
No. 66862/12(64)/E -II dated 13.12.2024 to re -examine the process of all the selected candidates
in Naseerabad Range (both physical and written followed by interview).
In view of the above, it to requested that all the selected candidates (180) be intimated to
ensure the presence with their original CNIC on the following dates for the purpose as mentioned against each, please.
Physical Test 26th December at 08:00 am
Written Test 2nd December at 09:00 am
Interviews 28th December at 09:30 am ".
5. The respondents in their parawise comments did not factually deny the stance of the
petitioners and asserted that although approval for the 180 successful candidates was granted, but the appointment orders could not be issued owing to directions from the Competent Authority.
6. Section 24- A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 ("Act of 1897") imposes a mandatory
obligation upon every executive and public authority to exercise their powers in a reasonable
manner, ensuring fairness in decision making. It implies that administrative orders should be speaking, clearly outlining the reasons for the decision, demonstrating application of mind that aligns with the principles of justice and fairness. For ease of reference section 24- A of the Act of
1897 is as infra;
"24-A. Exercise of power under enactments.- (1) Where, by or under any enactment, a
power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment.
(2) The authority, office or person making any order or issuing any direction under the
powers conferred by or under any enactment shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order or, as the case may be, for issuing the direction and shall provide a copy of the order or, as the case may be, the direction to the person affected prejudicially."
7. A bare perusal of the section ibid clearly manifests that an Authority, Office or Person
making any order or issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or under any enactment
shall decide the matter in a legal and just manner, and that while exercising these powers, the
authority must pass a speaking order duly supported by reasons, showing due application of mind to facts as well as law applicable and any order lacking such criteria is not only illegal, but also of no legal effect. In this regard, we are fortified with the view expounded by the apex court
in the case of "Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd v. Government of Pakistan through
Secretary Ministry of Finance" (2015 SCMR 630), the relevant portion of para No.9 reads as
under;
"9 .... The exercise of discretionary power must be rational and have a nexus with the
objectives of the underlying legislature, when it confers a wide ranging power it must be deemed to have assumed that the power will be, firstly, exercised in good faith, secondly, for the
advancement of the object of the legislation, and thirdly in a reasonable manner. Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, reiterates the principle that statutory powers is to be exercised "reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purposes of the enactment" and further clarifies that executive authority must give reasons for its decisions. Any action by any executive authority which is violative of these principles is liable to be struck down."
[Emphasis added]
8. Admittedly the petitioners have successfully qualified the recruitment process and were
duly recommended by the Recruitment Committee, but despite meeting all the requirements, no formal appointment letters were issued to them. Instead, respondents issued impugned letters, calling for a fresh test that too without disclosing any valid reason that could justify the re -
initiation of the entire recruitment process, which is found to be arbitrary and in violative of above stated principle, which cannot be allowed to hold field, more particularly when an indefeasible and vested right has been created in favour of the petitioners.
9. For what has been discussed herein above, the captioned constitutional petitions are
allowed, the impugned letters dated 13.12.2024 and 17.12.2024 are declared null and void, having no legal effect and consequent thereto, the respondents are directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners as per the approval granted by the Competent Authority within one month positively, after communication and receipt of this Order.
UN/134/Bal. Appeals allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.