SHC says unfilled govt posts encourage nepotism, ad-hocism

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) has criticised governance in the Services, General Administration and Coordination Department (SGA&CD), observing that leaving public sector vacancies unfilled promotes ad-hoc arrangements, informal delegation of authority and opacity, which can pave the way for nepotism and favouritism.

A two-judge constitutional bench headed by Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar made the observations while hearing a contempt application against the SGA&CD secretary and others over non-implementation of an SHC order directing them to decide the seniority and promotion dates of 18 mukhtiarkars within four months in light of two reported Supreme Court judgments.

The petitioners had initially approached the court in 2024, stating that some of their colleagues had been given promotion to the next higher grade as assistant commissioners from the dates vacancies arose, but they had been denied the same benefit. The court had decided the matter in March last year, but the respondents did not comply with its directions, prompting the petitioners to seek contempt proceedings.

Court examines conflicting official positions

According to the court order, after notice was issued, the SGA&CD secretary said the earlier ruling had been implemented in letter and spirit. Counsel for the petitioners, however, strongly contested that position and argued that the report was merely an attempt to defeat the SHC and Supreme Court orders.

The bench then directed the secretary to submit a fresh report on the vacancy position on the relevant dates and to decide the petitioners’ seniority issue. The secretary subsequently informed the court that no seat was available under the promotion quota when assistant commissioners were inducted through initial appointments. He also said the petitioners’ representation had been rejected by the chief secretary, after which an appeal was filed before the Sindh chief minister, who ordered the services department to re-verify both the vacancy position and the petitioners’ eligibility for promotion.

The bench noted, however, that under the chief minister’s order, 22 assistant commissioner posts were available against the promotion quota in 2019. When confronted on that point, the services secretary again sought time to comply.

Committee points to anomalies

The court further noted that the secretary later filed another report stating that a promotion-quota vacancy for assistant commissioners arose in 2022-23, following which the departmental promotion committee met in August 2023 and eligible mukhtiarkars were promoted as assistant commissioners. Since the petitioners seriously disputed that report, the bench constituted a three-member committee to examine their case and submit findings.

The committee found what the bench described as various anomalies in promotion matters within the SGA&CD. The order said the committee’s report presented a disturbing picture of governance in the department’s services wing and stressed that the department, as custodian of government employees, was required to protect the interests of civil servants working under the Sindh government.

The bench also observed from the record that 16 assistant commissioner posts under the promotion quota fell vacant in January 2019, but the departmental promotion committee was not convened to consider the petitioners’ promotions.

Bench warns of damage to merit and public confidence

The judges said the civil bureaucracy was meant to serve as the steel frame of the state rather than a rubber stamp, adding that the civil service must remain free from interference for the rule of law and the Constitution to be sustained. The bench also said it was inadvisable to keep civil service posts vacant for long periods because doing so hampered the functioning of public institutions and was not conducive to administrative efficiency.

The SHC further observed that the services department’s conduct itself reflected mala fide, saying it had, for a considerable period, misled the court by filing misleading reports. The bench also referred to the displeasure expressed by the court-appointed committee over the department’s affairs.

While holding the services secretary responsible for deliberately defying court orders and avoiding their implementation, the bench said this amounted to clear contempt of court. However, it said that on the request of the additional advocate general, along with an assurance given to the court, it was not proceeding against the contemnors at this stage.