FCC rules caretaker-era hiring in KP unlawful

ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has held that appointments made during the caretaker government period in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were unlawful, while also upholding the validity of the law used to remove those employees.

In a detailed written judgement issued by a three-member bench headed by Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi, the court said a caretaker administration is constitutionally limited to running day-to-day affairs and cannot make decisions of a lasting or permanent nature. The judgement stated that a caretaker government cannot be placed on the same footing as an elected government in terms of authority, and that its actions are subject to prior approval from the Election Commission of Pakistan.

The court said recruitment to public posts amounts to a permanent action rather than a temporary administrative measure, and therefore falls outside the mandate of a caretaker setup. On that basis, it ruled that appointments made in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa between January 2023 and February 2024 during the caretaker period were illegal.

Law on termination upheld

The FCC further ruled that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees Termination Act 2025 does not violate fundamental rights. It observed that the mere fact a law affects a particular group of individuals does not by itself make that law unconstitutional.

According to the judgement, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly formed after the general elections has the constitutional authority to legislate, including on matters relating to public employment. The court therefore dismissed the appeals filed by employees who had challenged both their termination and the law under which they were removed.

Case arose from pre-election appointments

The matter relates to the recruitment of Grade-IV employees by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa caretaker government ahead of the 2024 general elections. After the polls, the PTI government removed those employees through legislation, leading the affected individuals to contest the move in court.

The ruling addresses the extent of powers available to interim governments and draws a distinction between temporary administration and decisions with long-term legal effect.