IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
  
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
 
 
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed 
  
  
SUO MOTO CASE NO.18/2016, 
 
 
 
 
  
CMAs NOs.7067, 7587, 8495-8498/2016 IN SMC NO.18/2016 &  
CMA NO.8198/2016 IN CMA NO.7067/2016 IN SMC NO.18/2016,  
(Suo Moto Action regarding eligibility of Chairman and Members of 
Sindh Public Service Commission and others)  
 
 
In attendance: 
For Government of Sindh 
: Mr. Zameer Hussain Ghumro, AG Sindh 
Mr. 
Ghulam 
Ali 
Brahmai, 
Addl. 
Secretary, Services, Sindh  
 
For Chairman & Members 
of SPSC 
 
: Mr. Farooq H. Naek, ASC 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, AOR 
For Saindad Khan Solangi, 
Ghulam Shabbir Shaikh and 
Muhammad Hanif Pathan 
 
: Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR  
 
For the applicant(s) 
 
: Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, ASC 
(In CMA No.7587/2016) 
 
 
 Nemo  
(In CMAs Nos.7067, 8495 to 8498 of 
2016) 
 
  
Date of Hearing 
: 03.01.2017. 
 
ORDER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J. - These proceedings emanate out 
of an Application submitted by Mr. Muhammad Junaid Farooq, a practicing 
Lawyer of the High Court of Sindh, addressed to the Hon’ble the Chief 
Justice of Pakistan, complaining therein that the Chairman and Members 
appointed by the Government in the Sindh Public Service Commission 
(hereinafter referred to as the Commission), lack eligibility threshold as 
S.M.C.No.18/16. 
2 
provided in Section 3 of the Sindh Public Service Commission Act, 1989. It 
was further averred that the Chairman and Members were involved in 
corruption, nepotism and mass mismanagement in the Commission, which 
stories were aired/printed in the electronic and print media. He has prayed 
that this Court should take suo motu notice of this matter of great public 
importance, as it has far reaching effects on the future of youth of the 
Province of Sindh. He further prayed that all the recommendations made by 
the illegally appointed Chairman and Members for appointments to different 
posts should be declared void and of no legal effect.  
 
2. 
 
On this Application, one of us (Amir Hani Muslim, J), made the 
following recommendations:- 
“Through this Application, the applicant has challenged the 
eligibility and qualification of Chairman Public Service 
Commission Sindh and the members appointed by the Sindh 
Government. This is a matter of public importance and has direct 
bearing on the rights of public at large. Public Service 
Commission is constituted pursuant to the directions contained 
under Article 240 of the Constitution. If the Chairman and the 
Members themselves are not eligible to hold office, how can they 
allowed to undertake exercise of examining the candidates for 
appointments in the government departments. I, therefore, suggest 
the office to place this application before the HCJP, 
recommending to examine the issue raised in the application on 
judicial side under Article 184 (3) of the Constitution. 
 
3. 
 
Accordingly, the Application was placed before the Hon’ble 
Chief Justice of Pakistan, who was pleased to pass the following order:- 
“It may be treated as suo motu case and fixed at 
Islamabad on 28.09.2016 with notice to the A.G Sindh 
and the persons named at the bottom of this application.” 
 
S.M.C.No.18/16. 
3 
4. 
 
Notices were issued to the Applicant, Advocate General, Sindh, 
and the Respondents. The matter was fixed in Court on 28.09.2016, and the 
Secretary, Services, Sindh, was directed to place before the Court the service 
profiles of all the Members of the Commission, indicating the length of 
service of the Respondents in departments in each scale, including their 
length of service in BS-20. The Secretary, Establishment Division, 
Government of Pakistan, was also directed to produce the service profile of 
Muhammad Saleem Bhanwar, with details of his length of service in each 
scale, including BS-20.  
 
5. 
 
Thereafter the matter was posted on 17.10.2016 and on 
03.11.2016, when the following order was passed:- 
“The learned Advocate General Sindh has placed a statement in 
writing before the Court, which reads thus : - 
“The following persons have tendered their resignation to 
the Government of Sindh and has such Sindh Public Service 
Commission shall be reconstituted in accordance with the 
law.  
1. Mr. Muhammad Saleem Bhaounr, Chairman, SPSC 
2. Syed Jawed Ali Shah Bukhari, Member, SPSC 
3. Mr. Shamsuddin Hisbani, Member SPSC 
4. Mr. Feroze Mehmood Bhatti, Member SPSC 
5. Dr. Baz Muhammad Junejo, Member, SPSC 
6. Mr. Ashiq Ali Memon, Member, SPSC” 
 
2. 
From the above statement, it is not clear as to whether the 
resignations so tendered by the aforesaid officers of the Sindh 
Public Service Commission (SPSC) have been accepted or are still 
under consideration before the Competent Authority. In case, the 
fate of these resignations has not been decided as yet, it shall be 
positively decided within three days and relevant material to this 
effect be placed on record before the next date of hearing. In 
addition to it, the learned Advocate General, Sindh is directed to 
place on record the complete list of recommendies of SPSC from 
the date when Mr. Muhammad Saleem Bhaounr, Chairman SPSC 
was so designated in this office. 
3. 
The hearing of this case is adjourned to 17.11.2016. In the 
meantime, the interim order dated 17.10.2016 shall remain 
operative with further clarification that the Government of Sindh 
shall not make any appointment on the recommendations of SPSC, 
if any, already received by it.” 
 
S.M.C.No.18/16. 
4 
6. 
 
Today, Mr Farooq H Naek, learned ASC, has appeared and 
states that he has been instructed not to contest the case of Ashiq Ali 
Memon, one of the Members of the Commission, and that Ashiq Ali would 
immediately tender his resignation to the competent authority. On tendering 
the resignation, the competent authority shall forthwith accept it.   
 
7. 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, Sr. ASC has appeared for 
Saindad Khan Solangi, Ghulam Shabbir Shaikh and Muhammad Hanif 
Pathan, all three of whom are Members of the Sindh Public Service 
Commission and contended that all of them were appointed in accordance 
with law. He referred to Section 3 of the Sindh Public Service Commission 
Act, 1989 and submitted that two members i.e Saindad Khan Solangi and 
Ghulam Shabbir Shaikh were appointed by the Government in terms of 
Section 3 (3) of the Act, which provided for the appointment of not less than 
half of the Members from the service of Pakistan. However, the Member 
namely Muhammad Hanif Pathan was appointed under Section 3 (4) of the 
Act of 1989, whereby the remaining Members were to be appointed from the 
private sector. He referred to the service profiles of all the three Members 
and contended that the matter was taken up by this Court on the application 
of one Mr Muhammad Junaid Farooqi, whereby the appointments of the 
Chairman and the other Members were challenged but the eligibility of the 
Members who are his clients was never challenged.  
 
8. 
 
He referred to the service profiles of the two Members namely 
Saindad Khan Solangi and Ghulam Shabbir Shaikh and contended that these 
Members fulfill the criteria laid down under Section 3(3) of the Act.  
 
S.M.C.No.18/16. 
5 
9. 
 
He next contended that the 3rd Member, namely Muhammad 
Hanif Pathan, was appointed in pursuance of Section 3(4) of the Act, which 
stipulates that the remaining members shall be selected from private sector 
from amongst the eminent persons with minimum age of forty five years and 
maximum age of sixty five years representing liberal arts and science and 
professionals having a Bachelor’s Degree with sufficient practical 
experience 
in 
the 
relevant 
field. 
He 
submitted 
that 
the 
said 
Applicant/Respondent is from the private sector and has 40 years experience 
including 28 years experience of Aviation industry/P.I.A and 12 years in 
different Government organizations and is qualified to hold the office as 
Member of the Commission. 
 
10. 
 
He lastly contended that the removal of the Chairman and the 
Members of the Commission could only be made in accordance with the 
procedure laid down in Section 6 of the Act. 
 
11. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel M/s Farooq H. Naek and 
Ibrahim Satti besides the Advocate General Sindh and have perused the 
record with their assistance. After scanning the service profiles of all the 
Respondents, we are of the view that the appointments of two of the 
Members namely Saindad Khan Solangi and  Ghulam Shabbir Shaikh were 
made in accordance with the provisions of Section 3(3) of the Act. However, 
Muhammad Hanif Pathan, who is appointed as a Member, does not qualify 
the eligibility criteria as laid down in Sub-Section 4 of Section 3 (ibid). 
Contrary to the requirements stipulated in the said sub-section, he is not 
from the private sector. His experience is based on his 28 years service in the 
P.I.A, which is a public sector organization besides he does not qualify the 
S.M.C.No.18/16. 
6 
test of ‘eminent person’, as provided by Section 3 (4) of the Act. We, 
therefore, hold that the appointment of Muhammad Hanif Pathan as a 
Member of the Commission was not made in conformity with the provisions 
of Section 3 (4) of the Act.  
 
12. 
 
While hearing these proceedings, we have noticed that the 
Commission created under Article 242 of the Constitution is a constitutional 
body responsible for recruitment in public sector. The Act empowers the 
Sindh Government to appoint the Chairman and Members of the 
Commission, for which no formal mechanism for their selection has been 
delineated. Section 10 of the Act provides that the Government should make 
rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, but till date no such rules have 
been framed by the Government for determining the mode through which 
the Chairman/Members would be selected although there is reference of 
qualification under Section 3 of the Act, providing the eligibility of the 
Chairman and Members which needs further clarity by the rules stipulating 
the mechanism. The wisdom behind the provision of Section 10 empowering 
the Government to frame rules appears to be that the posts of Chairman and 
Members, which is left at the discretion of the Government under the statute, 
has to reach out such a group of eminent and dignified personalities who 
would otherwise not apply for these posts. The Chairman/Members of this 
constitutional body, who enjoy the constitutional protection, need to be 
selected from amongst noble individuals possessing incomparable 
competence, exalted caliber, unblemished track record, impeccable integrity 
and unquestionable impartiality. They should be the persons who can be 
entrusted with the responsibility of selecting the most deserving candidates 
S.M.C.No.18/16. 
7 
who will be holding key positions in the public sector a decade down the 
path.  
 
13. 
 
The application of ultimate wisdom in selection of the 
Chairman and Members of the Commission is extremely important, as it 
should have been a symbol of excellence, which is at the brink of losing its 
traditional grace. We have also noticed the controversy recently generated 
by the examinations/interviews and recommendations undertaken by the 
Commission headed by the Chairman namely Muhammad Saleem Bhanour, 
which was talk of the town.  
 
14. 
 
The appointment of the Chairman and Members of the 
Commission has far reaching effects as observed by us hereinabove and the 
inherent disqualification that we have noticed in their appointments was 
willfully overlooked by the relevant forum, as there is no yardstick provided 
for scrutinizing the caliber of the persons before their appointment. The 
discretion of the competent authority in making the appointments of the 
Commission needs to be structured through the rules, which need to be 
framed by the Government in terms of Section 10, suggesting a high-
powered permanent committee to examine the service profiles of the 
Chairman and Members to be selected under Section 3(3) and the qualifying 
standards provided therein. Likewise, the high-powered committee needs to 
scrutinize the eminence of the persons in the private sector before the 
selection as Member in consonance with the terms used in Section 3(4) of 
the Act.  
 
S.M.C.No.18/16. 
8 
15. 
 
This Court in the case of Muhammad Yasin Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132), which view was affirmed in the case of 
Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana Vs. Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1159), has 
provided the guidelines for appointment to the public office, which read as 
follows:- 
“(a) whether an objective selection procedure was 
prescribed; (b) if such a selection procedure was 
made, did it have a reasonable nexus with the 
object of the whole exercise, i.e selection of the 
sort of candidate envisaged in [the law]; (c) if 
such a reasonable selection procedure was indeed 
prescribed, was it adopted and followed with 
rigour, objectivity, transparency and due diligence 
to ensure obedience to the law”. 
 
16. 
 
These guidelines should be made basic criteria for appointment 
to the office of Chairman and Members of the Commission. The proposed 
rules need to be framed in a manner where the selection to the posts of 
Chairman and Members should be transparent and confined to the persons 
who enjoy high standards of integrity and honesty. The rules should further 
provide that the proposed appointee has a clean service record without any 
adverse entry in his P.E.Rs throughout his career.  
 
17. 
 
We, for the aforesaid reasons, direct the Government to 
immediately take steps to frame rules and thereafter appoint the Chairman 
and Members of the Commission against vacancies created by resignations 
of the Chairman/Members and by the order of this Court passed today. The 
Government shall retain the services of two Members namely Saindad Khan 
Solangi and Ghulam Shabbir Shaikh, as their appointments are found to 
S.M.C.No.18/16. 
9 
have been made in conformity with the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. 
The C.M.A.No.7066 of 2016 filed by Mr Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned 
Sr.ASC, is partly allowed in the above terms.  
 
18. 
 
There are complaints received by this Court against Jumo Khan 
Chandio, Deputy Controller of the Commission, and Javed Ahmed, Director 
I.T. who were ordered to be repatriated to their parent departments, who 
have been posted back to the Commission. We direct the Chief Secretary, 
Sindh, to place before us the original service profiles of both these officers 
with explanation as to how they could come back from their parent 
departments to the Commission and why proceedings under contempt law 
should not be initiated against them for willful defiance of the orders of this 
Court being beneficiaries. Both the officers shall appear in person on the 
next date of hearing with explanation.  
 
19. 
 
The next issue raised in these proceedings relates to the 
examinations/interviews and recommendations made by the Commission for 
appointments of the candidates to different departments in the intervening 
period. The Advocate General Sindh and the learned Counsel representing 
some of the recommendees shall make their submissions on the next date 
and appropriate orders shall be passed after hearing them.  
 
20. 
 
To come up after one week.  
Judge 
 
Islamabad the, 
3rd January 2017.    
 
 
 
 
 
    Judge 
Not approved for reporting. 
Sohail/**