PLJ 2025 Quetta 161
Present: MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL , J.
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ and others --Petitioners
versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and others --Respondents
Const. P. No. 1478 of 2024, decided on 27.3.2025.
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 --
----Art. 199 --Petitioner were regular employees --Transfer of --Deputation of respondent --Writ petition --Disposed of -
-Sale prerogative --Posting was sole prerogative of department concern and no employee could seek posting at
his/her/their whims and wishes --They had also failed to show that what prejudices may had been caused to them
on issuance of impugned notification, nor learned counsel for petitioner had been able to establish as to what
vested or legal right of petitioners is at stake, let alone a basic fundamental right --Respondent No. 6 posting
order on deputation had been passed reasonably by adopting procedure and fulfilling coddle formalities and that
too for a specific period of three years, and such order could not be reversed merely on allegations that it was
issued on whims and wishes of a Respondent No. 6 or his personal interest was floating or blowing down in
result of impugned notification --Petition dismissed.
[Pp. 166 & 167] B, C & D
Words & Phrases --
----Deputation --Deputation is a temporary administrative arrangement, where an employee is transferred from one
department, service, or organization to a different department, service, or organization to meet specific
administrative needs or service exigencies. [P. 165] A
Mr. Ahsan Rafiq Rana , Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Shai Haq Baloch , Additional Advocate General for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Mr. Nadir Ali Chalgari , Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
Mr. Farooq Mastoi , Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Date of hearing: 19.3.2025.
JUDGMENT
The captioned Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan 1973(‘the Constitution’), wherein the petitioners have sought the following relief: -
“a) Deputation Order dated 25.09.2024 passed by Respondent No. 2 is contrary to the law.
b) Respondent no.2 has no jurisdiction at all to transfer/post any person on deputation basis to another
Administrative department.
c) No Procedure for appointment of Respondent No. 6 on deputation basis adopted. As Respondent No.
6 is serving in BPS -17, so Chief Secretary with summary of S&GAD are only competent forum to
transfer and post any employee of Administrative department to other Administrative department on
deputation basis.
d). Neither Chief Secretary nor S&GAD were approached in this behalf, so all process is void -ab-
inition.
e). In tenure of Civil Servant one time of deputation is permissible and Respondent No. 6 has already
availed that opportunity, so he cannot be appointed/transferred on deputation basis in any other
department during his tenure of service.
f) For transfer on the post of Architect policy decision dated 14.12.2023 has been violated.
g) Respondent No. 5 has also exceeded from its jurisdiction in allocation of Zones to the Respondent
No. 6 as Administrator is only for look after charge and cannot interfere into policy decision.
h) After observing so, impugned Notifications dated 25.09.2024 and 26.09.2024 be declared as illegal,
without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
j) Strict action be taken against all concerned particularly Respondent No. 6 for inserting pressure for
obtaining the post/job in different department without any legal right.
k) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and appropriate be also awarded along with cost
of the petition.
2. Facts as narrated in the memo of petition are that the petitioners are regular employees of the
Metropolitan Corporation Quetta (MCQ) , appointed through the Balochistan Public Service Commission (BPSC) in
2007 and presently serving in BPS -17 & 18 respectively; that in 2018, Respondent No. 6 was transferred on
deputation to the MCQ , and when his transfer order was challenged by the petitioners by filing Constitutional
Petition bearing No. 421/2019 before this Court, however, on his subsequent posti ng as Acting Deputy Project
Director Medical College, Loralai the petition was disposed of vide order dated 30th October 2019; that Respondent
No. 6 repeatedly attempted to secure posting in the MCQ department without legal justification; that again the
Respondent No. 2 vide Notification dated 25th September 2024, placed the services of Respondent No. 6 at the
disposal of the MCQ on deputation basis for a period of three years and consequently vide Notification dated 26th
September 2024, the Respondent No. 6 being incharge/architect was assigned the Zone 1, 2, 4 completely in
derogation of law; disrupting existing arrangements and violating the government policies; hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Respondent No. 6 appointment/transfer/posting in
the QMC is made without adopting the due course of law as neither the borrowing nor the lending departments were
consulted and similarly, due to the said act the petitioners who are performing their job regularly are restrained from
working in their respective domain; that the Respondent No. 6 was continuously trying to get into the service of the
MCQ merely for his personal gain, but not to serve the department, while the Deputation policy clearly defines that
a transfer on deputation basis can only be made in case of exigency; that the impugned notification firstly issued
without adopting the due course of law and secondly defines a clear picture of excess of authority; that the
Respondent No. 6’s, posting is made against a post, where the petitioners are already performing their duties
satisfactorily, thus, there was no need for posting of any officer, and the impugned posting would only disturb the
affairs of the respondents; the learned counsel finally urged for an appropriate order.
Conversely, learned Additional Advocate General, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 and learned
counsel for MCQ strongly opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that the
posting of the Respondent No. 6 was made in exigency and best interest of the department; that the Respondent No.
6 has previously worked against the said position and during his service he prepared bylaws for the department and
thus in order to implement the same, the MCQ has borrowed the services of the Respondent No. 6, and the
Respondent No. 2 after fulfilling all legal formalities issued the impugned notification; that the petitioners have no
locus standi to file the instant petition, as no prejudice has been caused to them; they finally urged for dismissal of
the petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at reasonable length and perused the appended
documents with their able assistance.
5. In our view, the concept of posting of civil servants and/or government servants on deputation is not
novel; rather it has a rich history in service jurisprudence. The jurisprudence with regard to deputation has evolved
over time, and judicial interpretations on this branch of jurisprudence provide a detailed understanding of its
purpose, limitations, and implications not only for both the lending and borrowing departments and organizations,
but also for the deputationists. To fully grasp the essence of deputation, it is imperative to examine as to how it has
been defined and interpreted from time to time, and what its scope and limitations are. Albeit, the word “deputation”
has not been defined either by the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, or the Rules framed thereunder. However, it
has been defined numerously by the Superior Courts of the country in various pronouncements, which offer valuable
insights into its scope and limitations. In the case of Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Israr -ul-Haq and others,[1] the
Supreme Court defined it as under:
“Hitherto, the term “deputation” has not been formally defined. However, according to the practice in
vogue, a Government Servant begins to be regarded as a “deputationist” when he is appointed or
transferred, through the process of selection, to a post in a department or service altogether different from
the one to which he permanently belongs. He continues to be placed in this category so long as he holds the
new post in an officiating or a temporary capacity but ceases to be regarded as such either on confirmation
in the new post or on reversion to his substantive post.”
In “Muhammad Zia -Ul-Haq and others v. Government of Punjab and others”[2] it has been held as under: -
“15. The term ‘deputation’ has not been defined either in the Act of 1974 or Rules framed thereunder. It
is clear from its incidents that it is a specie of transfer. In other words, it is a transfer outside his service,
cadre or the functional unit ………………..”
In “Dr. Shafi -ur-Rehman Afridi v. C.D.A., Islamabad through Chairman and others”[3] it has been held as under:
“deputation can be defined as an administrative arrangement between borrowing and lending Authorities
for utilizing the services of an employee in the public interest and exigency of services against a particular
post and the deputationist cannot remain on deputation for an indefinite period or stipulated period in
accordance with his own whims and wishes.”
In view of the above quoted definitions, it can be concluded that deputation is a temporary administrative
arrangement, where an employee is transferred from one department, service, or organization to a different
department, service, or organization to meet specific administrative needs or service exigencies. Although,
employees on deputation retain their original status in their parent departments, services, and organizations,
however, they are required to perform duties in the borrowing department or organization for a specified period,
which is initially three years and may further extend to a total maximum of five years. This arrangement is governed
by the rules made and policies formulated for the purpose.
6. In the present petition the petitioners have expressed their frustration against the impugned
Notification dated 25th September 2024, mainly on the strength that the Respondent No. 6 being employee of other
department i.e. Quetta Development Authority cannot be transferred and posted in the Metropolitan Corporation. On
assessment of the case file it is evident that initially a summary was initiated for appointment of the Respondent No.
6 in the Metropolitan Corporation Quetta on basis of deputation on the request of Respondent No. 2 i.e. Secretary
Local Government & Rural Development Department, Government of Balochistan and consequently on the
approval of the concerned authorities/ departments and after issuance of NOC dated 25th September 2024 by the
lending department i.e. QDA, the Notification dated 25th September 2024 was issued. Such transfer and posting on
deputation are mainly made keeping in view the dire need of the borrowing department and the expertise of the
deputationist in the relevant field. Same reasons were very well asserted in the summary initiated, that the
Respondent No. 6 had earlier served in the MCQ for a period of about 01 year he had framed building, bylaws &
helped to strengthen building control branch of MCQ , however, said posting came to an end when the Respondent
No. 6 was transferred, however, his services were presently borrowed to take benefit of his expertise and implement
the bylaws that were framed by him. The main condition for a transfer posting on deputation was the concurrence of
both the landing and borrowing department, which in present case clearly reflects from the documents appended
with the reply filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2. The posting of Respondent No. 3 on deputation was/is not
intended as a means to accommodate him, nor is it designed to provide personal ease or convenience to him, but as
flowing from the summary initiated for his posting on deputation the dire need of the Local Department is the
paramount case and such decisions are guided solely by service requirements and the operational needs of the
departments or organizations involved. And it does not need any further clarification that all such transfer posting
are on temporary basis for a specific period of three years and once extendable for further two years.
7. The question with regard to the petitioners’ role in the present case also arises and to establish that on
what footing they can assailed the transfer order of the Respondent No. 3. Undoubtedly, posting is the sole
prerogative of the department concern and no employee can seek posting at his/her/their whims and wishes,
however, in present case the petitioners beside raising objection on the Respondent No. 6’s posting have also
expressed their dissatisfaction over the office order dated 26th September 2024, whereby Respondent No. 6 was
assigned the charge of zones 1, 2 & 4. The petitioners’ assertion was also that the Respondent No. 6 was earlier
posted on similar post on deputation, against which they filed Constitutional Petition No. 421 of 2019 before this
Court, but the same was disposed of vide on order dated 30th October 2019, on the basis of Respondent No. 6’s
subsequent posting as acting Deputy Project Director Medical College Loralai, but it is evident from the order dated
30th October 2019 that the said petition was not decided on merits, rather it was disposed of on having become
infructuous without rendering any findings on merits of the case. The petitioners in present case are agitating almost
the same reservations, but against a different order, but they have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in
the entire process starting from the request of the borrowing department and till issuance of NOC by the lending
department and similarly, they have also failed to show that what prejudices may have been caused to them on
issuance of the impugned notification, nor the learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to establish as to what
vested or legal right of the petitioners is at stake, let alone a basic fundamental right. He has been repeatedly asked
whether any justiciable right of the petitioner was being compromised but he has failed to point out any established
right of the petitioner and has only repeated his bald
assertions about the order being mala fide. The Respondent No. 6 posting order on deputation has been passed
reasonably by adopting the procedure and fulfilling coddle formalities and that too for a specific period of three
years, and such order cannot be reversed merely on the allegations that it was issued on the whims and wishes of a
Respondent No. 6 or his personal interest is floating or blowing down in result of the impugned notification.
In view of the above, the petition being bereft of any merits is dismissed accordingly, but with no order as
to costs.
(Y.A.) Petition dismissed
[1]. PLD 1981 SC 531.
[2]. 1996 PLC( C.S.) 134.
[3]. (2010 SCMR 378).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.