IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Original Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED 
 
 
CONSTITUTION PETITION NO. 30 OF 2013 
 
Khawaja Muhammad Asif  
 
 
…. Petitioner 
Versus 
 
Federation of Pakistan & others 
 
 
 
 
 
…. Respondents 
AND 
 
CMAs NO. 2991 & 3015 OF 2013 IN CONST. PETITION NO. 23 
OF 2013 
(Appointments, postings and transfers made by the Caretaker 
Government) 
 
A/W 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3331 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Sikandar Ahmed Rai, Acting 
Secretary W&P) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3343 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Sanaullah Shah, M.D. ENAR) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3354 OF 2013 
(Application of Rana Asad Amin, Advisor Finance 
Division) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3355 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Muhammad Amir Malik, Member 
I.T) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3356 OF 2013 
(Application of Kamran Ali, Member Legal/MP-I) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3373 OF 2013 
(Application of Dr. Fayyaz Ahmed Ranja, D.G. 
Pakistan Manpower) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3375 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Tariq Mehmood Pirzada, MD PHA) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3376 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Tariq Shafi Chak, E.D. NAVTTC) 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
2 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3377 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Farooq Sultan Khattak, Director 
CDA) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3378 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Rizwan Mumtaz Ali, Chairman 
NFC) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3379 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Asad Ahmed Jaspal, Director 
Training PTV) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3380 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Zafar Iqbal Bangash, Producer 
PTV) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3382 OF 2013 
(Application 
of 
Mr. 
Wasim 
Muhammad 
Khan, 
Chairman NTC) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3383 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Abid Javed Akbar, CE, TDA) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3385 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Asif Ghafoor, Addl. Secy. National 
Heritage) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3396 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Muhammad Altaf Bawan, D.G. 
HRM (NAB) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3397 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Tahir Alam Khan, DIG (Security) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3403 OF 2013 
(Application of Syed Khalid Ali Raza Gardezi, J.S. M/o 
Finance) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3404 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Umar Ali, J.S. State & Frontier 
Region Div.) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3405 OF 2013 
(Application 
of 
Dr. 
Imran 
Zeb 
Khan, 
Chief 
Commissioner Afghan Refugees) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3406 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Amjad Nazir, Secretary States  
and Frontier Region Div.) 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3407 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Waheed ur Rehman Khattak, 
Addl. SP (Saddar)) 
 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
3 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3408 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Muhammad Khalid Khattak, DIG 
(HQ) Ibd) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3409 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Sabih Hussain, SP (HQ), Ibd) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3410 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Raja, 
Chairman PM Insp. Commission) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3438 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Abdur Rashid, Director, DRAP) 
 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3451 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Mumtaz Khan, Member IRSA) 
 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3467 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Viqar Rasheed Khan, Chairman 
NTC) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3478 OF 2013 
(Application 
of 
Dr. 
Shahbaz 
Ahmad 
Kureshi, 
Consultant, Poly Clinic) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3479 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Noor Zaman Khan, Director 
NACTA) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3480 OF 2013 
(Application 
of 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Nadeem 
AGM 
Marketing) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3481 OF 2013 
(Application of Dr. Anees Kausar, M.O. Poly Clinic) 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 3492 OF 2013 
(Application of Mr. Tahir Maqsood, D.G. PITAD) 
 
 
For the Petitioner  
 
Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Safdar Hussain, AOR assisted by 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Ali Shah Gilani, Advocate 
 
On Court Notice  
 
Mr. Irfan Qadir,  
Attorney General for Pakistan 
Mr. Dil Muhammad Alizai, DAG 
 
For Estt. Division 
 
Mr. Sher Afzal, Joint Secretary 
 
 
 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
4 
For the applicants 
 
(In CMA 3331/13),  
 
Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
(In CMA 3343/13),  
 
Nemo 
(In CMA 3354/13),  
 
Mr. Shah Khawar, ASC 
(In CMA 3355-56/13),   
Sardar Muhammad Aslam, ASC 
(In CMA 3373/13),  
 
Nemo 
(In CMA 3375/13),  
 
Mr. Tariq Mehmood Pirzada, in Person 
(In CMA 3376/13),  
 
Mr. Tariq Shafi Chak, in person 
(In CMA 3377/13)  
 
Mr. Farooq Sultan Khattak, in person 
(In CMA 3378/13),  
 
Mr. Aftab Rana, ASC 
(In CMA 3379-80/13),   
Mr. Shahid Mehmood Khokhar, ASC 
(In CMA 3382/13),  
 
Nemo 
(In CMA 3383/13),  
 
Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharral, ASC 
(In CMA 3385/13),  
 
Mr. Asif Ghafoor, In person 
(In CMA 3396/13),  
 
Nemo 
(In CMA 3397/13),  
 
Mr. Tahir Alam Khan, in person 
(In CMA 3403/13),  
 
Syed Khalid Ali Raza Gardezi, in peson 
(In CMA 3404-3406/13),  
Mr. Muhammad Akram Gondal, ASC 
(In CMA 3407/13),  
 
Nemo 
(In CMA 3408/13),  
 
Nemo 
(In CMA 3409/13),  
 
Nemo 
(In CMA 3410/13),  
 
Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Raja, in person 
(In CMA 3438/13),  
 
Nemo 
(In CMA 3451/13),  
 
Mr. Waqar Rana, ASC 
(In CMA 3467/13),  
 
Mr. Viqar Rasheed Khan, in person 
(In CMA 3478 & 3481/13), 
Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC 
(In CMA 3479/13),  
 
Mr. Noor Zaman, in person 
(In CMA 3480/13),  
 
Nemo 
(In CMA 3492/13),  
 
Nemo 
 
 
Date of hearing:    
 
06.06.2013 
 
J U D G M E N T 
 
 
 
IFTIKHAR 
MUHAMMAD 
CHAUDHRY, 
CJ.— 
This 
Constitution Petition has been filed under Article 184(3) of the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan by one of the elected 
Parliamentarians, namely, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, wherein he has 
sought the following reliefs: -  
“Declare, in the circumstances aforesaid, the acts of the 
care-taker 
government 
in 
effecting 
the 
aforesaid 
transfers/postings/shuffling null and void, void ab initio 
and 
of 
no legal 
effect 
being in 
contravention 
of 
Constitution, constitutional conventions and law.  
In the alternative, declare that the aforesaid acts of the 
care-taker government of passing and signing of the 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
5 
orders affecting the aforesaid transfers/postings/shuffling 
were never, in fact, signed and/or passed and/or 
communicated for further necessary action. 
Direct, in the circumstances aforesaid, that all the 
postings/transfers/shuffling be reversed and the status quo 
ante be reverted to, i.e. the position when the care-taker 
government was sworn in.  
Direct the Federation/care-taker government to refrain 
from effecting any further appointments/transfers/shuffling 
during their remaining tenure.” 
 
2. 
  
As in CMAs 2991 & 3015 of 2013 in Constitution Petition 
No.23 of 2012 identical issues about appointments, transfers and 
postings, etc., were raised, therefore, a learned Bench of this Court, 
vide order dated 28.05.2013, referred the said miscellaneous 
applications to this Bench, to avoid overlapping of the proceedings 
and/or the possibility of rendering of conflicting judgments on similar 
issues in the event of parallel proceedings being conducted in two 
different benches simultaneously.  
3. 
  
On 22.05.2013 and 04.06.2013, orders were passed and 
the Secretaries of the concerned Ministries/Divisions of the Federal 
Government were called upon to furnish details of the Government 
servants/employees, who were appointed, transferred, posted, etc. 
Relevant paras there from are reproduced hereinbelow respectively:- 
Order dated 22.05.2013 
 
“3. 
He has stated that the Caretaker Government has 
made inter alia following transfers and postings in the civil 
service, statutory bodies, autonomous or semi autonomous 
bodies, corporations and regulatory authorities :- 
 
a) 
The Chairman of the National Highway Authority, Hamid 
Ali Khan was replaced, on 16.05.2013, by Sajjad Hussain 
Baloch; 
b) 
The Chairman NEPRA was replaced, on 16.05.2013, and 
Justice (R) Ahmad Khan Lashari has been appointed; 
c)  
The Managing Director SNGPL, Arif Hameed was replaced, 
on 15.05.2013, by Amin Tufail; 
d) 
The 
Managing 
Director 
SSGCL 
was 
replaced, 
on 
15.03.2013, by Rahat Kamal Siddiqui; 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
6 
e) 
The Managing Director, Pakistan Mineral Development 
Corporation, Khalid Khokhar was replaced by Saifullah 
Khan; 
f) 
The Chairman, National Fertilizer, Rizwan Mumtaz Ali was 
removed on 09.05.2013;  
g) 
The Managing Director, Oil and Gas Development 
Corporation, 
Masood 
Siddiqui 
was 
removed 
on 
06.05.2013; 
h) 
The Chairman, State Life Corporation was removed on 
16.05.2013; 
i) 
The 
Chairman, 
Pakistan 
Tourism 
Development 
Corporation has reportedly been removed and an another 
appointed in his stead; 
j) 
The Chairman, Pakistan Software Export Board has been 
removed and in his stead Saleem Ahmed Ranjha has been 
appointed who is a direct inductee of Yusuf Raza Gillani 
the previous Prime Minister; 
k) 
The Director General, FIA who was appointed one month 
back is also reportedly in the process of being replaced; 
l) 
That 
certain 
employees/officers 
of 
the 
Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Authority 
have 
reportedly 
been 
removed from service without following the procedure as 
set out under the relevant statute; 
m) 
That reportedly many other mid – level staff of such like 
aforesaid 
corporation/bodies 
have 
been 
shuffled/ 
transferred/removed”. 
 
7. 
We do allow the learned Attorney General for 
Pakistan to take instructions from the Government but in 
view of the importance of the issue involved in the 
petition, we direct that: - 
all the appointments, transfers and postings, which 
have been made by the Caretaker Government, 
referred to hereinabove, shall stand suspended and 
till pendency of this petition no further appointment, 
transfer and posting shall be made by the Caretaker 
Government including the appointment of Federal 
Ombudsman, Tax Ombudsman and Anti-Dumping 
Tribunal, except the postings and transfers, which 
relate to day-to-day business of the government and 
are required to be made in the interest of State and 
also to watch the interest of public, strictly following 
the rules and regulations on the subject, and in a 
transparent manner.” 
 
 
Order dated 04.06.2013 
 
“2. Khawaja Muhammad Asif, petitioner, appeared in 
person and stated that the order dated 22.05.2013 has not 
been complied with in letter and spirit inasmuch as the 
Caretaker Government without lawful authority terminated 
the services of some of those officers who were already 
working and performing their duties in Finance Division 
and I.T., either as Advisors or on contract. As duly elected 
government is likely to take over within a day or so and 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
7 
budget is likely to be prepared shortly, therefore, due to 
unlawful action of Caretaker Government concerned 
Divisions are facing a lot of difficulties. He has further 
stated that about more than 100 officers have been sent 
on deputation to different organizations from the Province 
of Balochistan after 22nd May, 2013 without adhering to the 
rules and regulations knowing well that the orders relating 
to the policy making cannot be passed by the Caretaker 
Government. 
 
4. 
Since all these issues are important in nature, 
therefore, we direct the Secretaries, Establishment, 
Cabinet, Health, Water & Power, Finance Division(s) and all 
other concerned Departments/Corporations to file lists of 
the officers –   
 
(a) 
who were appointed against any post by the Caretaker 
Government after taking over including Chairmen etc of 
the Corporations whose list finds mention in the order 
dated 22.05.2013;  
(b) 
whose services were acquired on deputation from 
different organizations on different positions in the 
Departments and Corporations controlled by the Federal 
Government;  
(c) 
whose services were terminated because they were 
holding different positions on contract basis in all the 
Government Departments/Hospitals;  
(d) 
Whose transfers have been made contrary to the 
Judgment of Anita Turab’s case, etc;  
(e) 
Deputationists 
brought 
to 
Federal 
Government 
Departments from the Province of Balochistan.” 
 
In response to the above orders, summary of the transfers, postings, 
termination of service/contract of the employees was submitted vide 
CMA No.3515/2013, which reads as under: -  
STATEMENT INDICATING POSTINGS/TRANSFERS/APPOINTMENTS MADE BY 
THE CARETAKER GOVERNMENT 
 
Sl.
No 
Group/ 
Service 
Promotion 
Directive 
Ministries/ 
Division’s 
Proposal 
Repatriated Addl. 
Current 
Charge 
Routine  
Postings 
Transfers 
Contract 
appointments 
Transfer 
on 
deputation 
Total 
1. 
Autonom
ous 
Bodies  
- 
03 
11 
03 
02 
- 
11 
- 
30 
2. 
Secretari
at Group 
31 
59 
18 
07 
- 
24 
- 
- 
139 
3. 
Pakistan 
Administr
ative 
Services 
17 
15 
07 
- 
- 
33 
- 
- 
72 
4. 
Police 
67 
09 
06 
01 
- 
33 
- 
- 
116 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
8 
5. 
Ex-Cadre 
- 
02 
09 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
11 
6 
Misc. 
- 
06 
- 
- 
- 
24 
- 
44 
74 
 
Total 
115 
94 
51 
11 
02 
114 
11 
44 
442 
 
4.  
  
It may be mentioned here that in the order dated 
22.05.2013 it had been observed that any individual whose posting, 
appointment or transfer was suspended and he was aggrieved of the 
said order, he might come forward by making application(s), which 
would be dealt with after hearing him/them.  
5. 
  
It may be observed that learned Attorney General 
informed that Justice (R) Faqir Muhammad Khokar, Chairman Anti- 
Dumping Appellate Tribunal, Justice (R) Ahmed Khan Lashari, 
Chairman NEPRA and Justice (R) Kalash Nath Kohli, Chairman Sacked 
Employees’ Review Board have tendered resignations, which are under 
process, except the resignation of Chairman Anti-Dumping Tribunal, 
which has already been accepted on 31.05.2013. Mr. Sher Afzal, Joint 
Secretary is directed that no sooner their resignations are accepted, he 
may inform the Court.  
6. 
  
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under 
the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the elected 
Parliamentary Government is responsible to achieve the object of good 
governance and in continuance of the same, it is obliged to post 
suitable persons being in the employment of the Government/private 
sector to head various departments, corporations and organizations 
controlled 
by 
the 
Government 
to 
run 
their 
result-oriented 
administration, as such elected Government has to fulfill the object 
and purpose of welfare of the citizens. The Caretaker Government, 
which is installed for a limited period of 2/3 months with the object of 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
9 
assisting the Election Commission of Pakistan in organizing fair, free, 
honest and just elections, cannot be considered to be the replacement 
of the elected Government. As such, the Caretaker Government is 
debarred from making large scale transfers, postings, re-shuffling of 
the Government employees, having far reaching effects/impact on the 
administration, commercial and industrial departments/organizations, 
because if a person is appointed against an important position, and his 
performance is not found suitable or it is not in accordance with the 
policies of the elected Government, it would not be possible for the 
Government to implement its policies. He further argued that the 
Caretaker Government had also exceeded its authority in assigning the 
reasons that the appointments, postings, transfers, reshuffling, etc., 
have been made following the directions/observations contained in the 
letter dated 02.04.2013 of the Election Commission of Pakistan.  
7. 
 
Learned Attorney General for Pakistan did not address 
arguments on the issues involved in these cases as such and only 
confined to making certain references to the record, e.g., CMA 2676 & 
2770/2013 in Constitution Petition No.23/2012 filed pursuant to the 
Court’s directions as well as CMA No.3514/2013, etc., filed in the case.  
8. 
 
In pursuance of this Court’s order dated 22.05.2013, 
various individuals filed applications seeking relief against their 
postings, transfers, etc. and such of the applicants, who were present 
in Court, were also afforded opportunity of hearing. Some of them did 
not press their applications and requests so made by them were 
allowed. For convenience of reference, details of the applications are 
reproduced hereinbelow:-  
Applications dismissed in default:  
 
 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
10
S.# 
CMA No. 
Applicant’s 
Name 
Designation/Deptt. Grievance/Remarks 
1. 
CMA.3343/13 Sanaullah 
Shah 
M.D. 
ENAR, 
Petrotech 
Service 
Ltd.  
His services were placed at 
the disposal of SEC vide 
letter dated 9.4.2013 
 
 
 
 
 
2. 
CMA.3373/13 Dr. Fayyaz 
Ahmad 
Ranjha 
Director 
General 
Pakistan 
Manpower 
Institute 
He 
was 
pre-mature 
repatriated to Province of 
Punjab 
vide 
Notification 
dated 9.5.2013 
3. 
CMA.3382/13 Wasi 
Muhammad 
Khan 
Chairman NTC 
Applicant has challenged the 
notification dated 30.4.2013 
whereby Mr. Viqar Rasheed 
Khan 
was 
appointed 
on 
contract basis as Chairman 
NTC by ignoring him  
4. 
CMA.3396/13 Muhammad 
Altaf 
Bawany 
D.G. (HRM,), NAB 
The applicant being regular 
Officer of NAB was serving 
as 
Chief 
Instructor, 
NIM 
(formerly 
NIPA) 
on 
deputation 
and 
vide 
Notification dated 28.2.2011 
he was repatriated to his 
parent department to join 
new assignment as D.G. 
NAB 
5. 
CMA.3407/13 Waheed ur 
Rehman 
Khattak 
Addl. SP (Saddar) 
Applicant 
was 
transferred 
from Punjab to Balochistan 
vide 
notification 
dated 
16.5.2013 by ignoring the 
seniority 
as 
two 
of 
his 
colleagues were senior to 
him 
6. 
CMA.3408/13 Muhammad 
Khalid 
Khattak 
D.I.G. Headquarters, 
Islamabad 
Applicant 
was 
promoted 
from BS-19 to BS-20 vide 
Notification dated 3.4.2013 
and 
thereafter 
vide 
notification dated 10.4.3013 
he was transferred from the 
post of AIG (General) to DIG 
(HQ) and prayed that his 
case does not strictly fall in 
any kind of transfer and 
posting  
7. 
CMA.3409/13 Shabih 
Hussain 
PSP 
BS-18-AC 
c/o 
ICT 
Police, 
Islamabad 
The applicant was serving in 
KPK and Vide Notification 
dated 15.5.2013 his services 
have been placed at the 
disposal 
of 
Federal 
Government 
for 
further 
posting in Islamabad Police 
and it was a routine transfer 
8. 
CMA.3438/13 Dr. 
Abdul 
Rashid 
Director, 
Pharma 
Licensing, 
Quality 
Assurance & Quality 
Control, 
Drug 
Regulatory Agency of 
Pakistan 
Vide 
Notification 
dated 
21.3.2013 the applicant has 
been transferred from the 
post 
of 
Director 
Pharma 
Licensing Quality Assurance 
& Quality Control to the post 
of Deputy Director General 
(Pharmacovigilance) 
DRAP, 
Islamabad 
9. 
CMA.3480/13 Muhammad 
Nadeem 
Asstt. Gen. Manager 
Marketing  
The 
applicant 
has 
been 
transferred vide Office Order 
dated 5.4.2013 from Zonal 
Head Gujranwala to AGM 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
11
(Marketing) Lahore 
10. 
CMA.3492/13 Tahir 
Maqsood 
Additional Secretary 
(awaiting posting) 
The applicant was serving as 
Senior Joint Secretary and 
his 
services 
have 
been 
placed at the disposal of 
Estt. 
Division 
vide 
Notification dated 10.5.2013 
 
 
Applications dismissed where alternate remedy was availed: 
 
 
S.# 
CMA.. 
Applicant’s 
Name 
Designation/Deptt. Remarks 
1. 
CMA.3383/2013 Abid Javed Akbar 
C.E. 
Trade 
Development 
Authority 
Rai Nawaz Kharral, 
learned 
counsel 
stated 
that 
the 
applicant 
has 
already approached 
to 
the 
Islamabad 
High 
Court 
for 
redressal 
of 
his 
grievance regarding 
termination of his 
contract.  
Dismissed. 
2. 
CMA.3478/13  
Dr. 
Shahbaz 
Ahmad Kureshi 
Consultant Physician 
(Cardiology) 
in 
Polyclinic Islamabad 
Mr. Husnain Ibrahim 
Kazmi, 
learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
caveator (Dr. Nasir 
Moin) has filed CMA 
No. 
3491/13 
and 
stated 
that 
the 
applicant’s 
Writ 
Petition 
No.1999/2013 
has 
already 
been 
dismissed 
on 
13.5.2013 and no 
CPLA has been filed 
before 
this 
Court 
against 
the 
said 
order and contrary 
to it the applicant 
opted to approach 
the Service Tribunal 
where the matter is 
pending. 
When 
it 
was 
brought 
into 
the notice of the 
learned counsel for 
the 
applicant 
he 
stated that he  may 
be 
allowed 
to 
withdraw this CMA.  
Dismissed 
as 
Withdrawn. 
3. 
CMA 3481/13 
Dr. Anis Kausar 
Medical Officer, FG 
Polyclinic Islamabad 
Mr. 
Tariq 
Asad 
learned counsel for 
the applicant is not 
in attendance.  This 
application 
is 
identical 
to 
CMA 
3478 which we have 
already 
dismissed.  
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
12
This application is 
also dismissed. 
 
Application dismissed on the ground that appointment/transfer was made 
in routine: 
 
1. 
CMA No.3479/2013 
Noor 
Zaman 
Khan 
Director 
NACTA, 
Islamabad 
Applicant 
was 
serving 
as 
Senior Government Pleader in 
KPK 
and 
he 
has 
been 
transferred as Director NACTA, 
Islamabad 
and 
now 
has 
reported back to his parent 
department. 
 
Plea 
of 
the 
applicant is that his spouse is 
working 
in 
Islamabad, 
therefore, he was brought on 
deputation. 
 
Since 
the 
applicant has been reverted 
back to his parent department 
in routine, no interference is 
called 
for 
in 
the 
instant 
proceedings.  Dismissed. 
 
Applications which were not entertained:  
 
 
1. 
CMA 
No.3375/2013 
Muhammad 
Tariq 
Mehmood 
Pirzada 
M.D. PHA 
Applicant 
appeared 
and 
stated that he has been 
transferred on completion of 
tenure 
period, 
does 
not 
press 
this 
petition.  
Dismissed as not pressed. 
2. 
CMA 
No.3377/13  
Farooq 
Sultan 
Khattak 
Director 
CDA, 
Islamabad 
Applicant states that he has 
been sent back to his parent 
department, therefore, does 
not 
press 
this 
CMA.  
Dismissed as not pressed. 
3. 
CMA 
No.3378/2013 
Rizwan 
Mumtaz Ali 
Chairman NFC 
Mr. 
Aftab 
Alam 
Rana, 
learned 
counsel 
for 
the 
applicant has no instructions 
because 
he 
could 
not 
answer 
to 
our 
queries.  
Dismissed accordingly. 
4. 
CMA 
No.3379/2013 
Asad 
Ahmed 
Jaspal 
Dir. 
Training 
Academy PTV 
Mr. 
Shahid 
Mehmood 
Khokhar, 
learned 
counsel 
for the applicant states that 
applicant 
is 
in 
the 
employment 
of 
PTV 
Corporation 
and 
he 
is 
aggrieved from his transfer 
on the verbal orders of the 
Acting Manager.  As the 
applicant 
is 
in 
the 
employment 
of 
a 
Corporation, 
therefore no 
indulgence can be shown in 
the 
instant 
proceedings.  
Dismissed.  
5. 
CMA 
No.3380/2013 
Zafar Iqbal 
Bangash 
Producer, PTV 
Mr. 
Shahid 
Mehmood 
Khokhar, 
learned 
counsel 
for the applicant states that 
applicant 
is 
in 
the 
employment 
of 
PTV 
Corporation 
and 
he 
is 
aggrieved from his transfer 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
13
on the verbal orders of the 
Acting Manager.  As the 
applicant 
is 
in 
the 
employment 
of 
a 
Corporation, 
therefore no 
indulgence can be shown in 
the 
instant 
proceedings.  
Dismissed. 
6. 
CMA 
No.3397/13 
Tahir Alam 
Khan          
DIG Security 
Mr. 
Tahir 
Alam 
Khan, 
applicant 
appeared 
and 
stated that his case pertains 
to actualisation, therefore, 
he does not want to press 
this application.  Dismissed 
as not pressed.  
7. 
CMA 
No.3403/13 
Syed Khalid 
Ali 
Raza 
Gardezi 
J.S. M/o Finance 
GoP 
Syed 
Khalid 
Ali 
Raza 
Gardezi, applicant appeared 
and stated that he has been 
sent back to his parent 
department, therefore, does 
not 
press 
this 
petition.  
Dismissed as not pressed. 
8. 
CMA 
No.3404/2013 
Umar Ali 
J.S. 
States 
& 
Frontier Regions 
Division 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Akram 
Gondal, 
learned 
counsel 
stated that the applicants 
have been 
promoted 
on 
merits, therefore, he does 
not press these applications  
Dismissed as not pressed. 
9. 
CMA 
No.3405/2013 
Dr. 
Imran 
Zeb Khan 
Chief 
Commissioner 
Afghan 
Refugees, Ibd. 
10. 
CMA 
No.3406/2013 
Amjad 
Nazir 
Secretary, 
States 
& 
Frontier Regions 
Division 
 
 
9. 
 
It is to be observed that the other learned Bench of this 
Court, while hearing Constitution Petitions No.23/2013 on 09.05.2013 
was, prima facie, of the opinion that notification of the Election 
Commission dated 02.04.2013 did not provide any valid justification, 
much less a compelling reason, so as to justify the transfers, postings, 
etc., in question. The contents of notification of the ECP are 
reproduced hereinbelow: -  
 
“ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN 
NOTIFICATION 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad the 2nd April, 2013 
  
 
No.F.8(12)/2012-Cord(1)- WHEREAS it is expedient to 
ensure that all those who are in the service of Pakistan 
perform their duties to serve public interest and assist the 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
14
Election Commission of Pakistan in the conduct of General 
Elections 2013 fairly, justly, honestly and in accordance 
with law;  
 
AND WHEREAS it is also expedient to take pre-emptive 
steps so that no employee in the service of Pakistan should 
try to influence the election process in any manner to 
favour any particular political party or a candidate;  
 
 
NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred 
upon it under Article 218(3) of the Constitution read with 
sections 103(c) and 104 of the Representation of the 
People Act 1976, the directions dated 08.06.2012 of the 
Supreme Court of Pakistan in Workers’ Party Pakistan’s 
case and all other powers enabling it in that behalf, the 
Election Commission of Pakistan is pleased to direct the 
Federal and Provincial Caretaker Governments to:  
 
(i) 
Shuffle/transfer 
all 
Federal 
and 
Provincial 
Secretaries. However, if the caretaker government 
considers that a federal or provincial secretary need 
not be transferred/shuffled, it may refrain from doing 
so 
and 
intimate 
the 
same 
to 
the 
Election 
Commission.  
(ii) 
(ii) 
Assess whether the Chairpersons / Chief 
Executives of all autonomous and semi-autonomous 
and/or state owned bodies, IG Police, CCPOs, City 
Commissioners, DCOs, DPOs, SHOs, patwaris and 
EDOs are independent individuals and transfer those 
who do not meet this criteria.  
 
2. 
Clauses (iii) and (iv) of this Commission’s Notification 
No.8(12)/2012-Cord(1) dated 26th March, 2013 are 
hereby withdrawn. This directive shall not apply to specific 
transfers made under the directions of the Election 
Commission.  
 
 
By Order of the Election Commission of Pakistan. 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
    Sd/- 
(Syed Sher Afgan) 
Acting Secretary” 
  
  
 
10. 
 
A perusal of the above notification suggests that it was 
issued by the ECP under Article 218(3) of the Constitution read with 
sections 103(c) and 104 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 
and the directions dated 08.06.2012 of this Court issued in Worker’s 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
15
Party Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 681) and all 
other powers enabling it in that behalf, directing the Federal and 
Provincial Caretaker Governments to transfer/shuffle all Federal and 
Provincial 
Secretaries. 
However, 
if 
the 
Caretaker 
Government 
considered that a Federal or Provincial Secretary need not be 
transferred/shuffled, it would refrain from doing so and intimate the 
same to the ECP. We tend to agree with the learned counsel for the 
petitioner that under the notification noted hereinabove; the Caretaker 
Government had been authorized not to transfer/shuffle any 
Government servant, if it considered that it was not expedient to do 
so. But, at any rate, no powers were given to requisition the services 
of the employees on deputation or make fresh appointments against 
the available vacancies, or make proforma promotions of officials of all 
grades in autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies, corporations, 
regulatory 
authorities, 
statutory 
bodies, 
government 
controlled 
corporations, etc.   
11. 
 
It is to be seen that the Caretaker Cabinet/Prime Minister 
were installed in the Federation and Provinces in the month of March, 
2013 after dissolution of the National and the Provincial Assemblies on 
completion of their respective terms provided under Article 224(1) & 
(1A) of the Constitution, which read as under: -  
224. Time of election and bye-election.— (1) A general 
election to the National Assembly or a Provincial Assembly 
shall be held within a period of sixty days immediately 
following the day on which the term of the Assembly is due 
to expire, unless the Assembly has been sooner dissolved, 
and the results of the election shall be declared not later 
than fourteen days before that day. 
 
(1A) On dissolution of the Assembly on completion of its 
term, or in case it is dissolved under Article 58 or Article 
112, the President, or the Governor, as the case may be, 
shall appoint a caretaker Cabinet: 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
16
 
Provided that the care-taker Prime Minister shall be 
appointed by the President in consultation with the Prime 
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the outgoing 
National Assembly, and a care-taker Chief Minister shall be 
appointed by the Governor in consultation with the Chief 
Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the outgoing 
Provincial Assembly: 
 
Provided further that if the Prime Minister or a Chief 
Minister and their respective Leader of the Opposition do 
not agree on any person to be appointed as a care-taker 
Prime Minister or the care-taker Chief Minister, as the case 
may be, the provisions of Article 224A shall be followed : 
 
Provided also that the Members of the Federal and 
Provincial care-taker Cabinets shall be appointed on the 
advice of the care-taker Prime Minister or the care-taker 
Chief Minister, as the case may be. 
 
12. 
 
As in instant case the Caretaker Prime Minister could not 
be appointed in terms of Article 224(1A) of the Constitution for want of 
consensus between the former elected Prime Minister and the Leader 
of the House, therefore, the provisions of Article 224A of the 
Constitution were invoked, and ultimately on account of inability of the 
Committee constituted under Article 224A(1) & (2) to decide the 
matter, the names of the nominees were referred to the Election 
Commission of Pakistan for finalizing the name of  the caretaker Prime 
Minister within two days, thus, as a result of deliberations by the ECP, 
Caretaker Prime Minister was appointed in accordance with the 
provisions of Articles 224(1A) and 224A(1) & (2) of the Constitution.  
13. 
 
Essentially, 
according 
to 
the 
settled 
and 
accepted 
norms/practice, the Caretaker Government (Prime Minister and 
Cabinet) is required to perform its functions to attend to the day-to-
day matters, which are necessary to run the affairs of the State and 
also to watch the national interests, etc., in any eventuality in absence 
of an elected Government, and such Government is not authorized to 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
17
make decisions/appointments having effect on the working/policies of 
the future Government, which is likely to take over after the elections. 
Apart from providing assistance to the Election Commission in 
organizing free, fair, honest and just elections in the country, it is not 
vested with the authority to take decisions concerning the affairs of 
the Government, which are bound to pre-empt the scope and sphere 
of activity, powers and jurisdiction of an elected Government. A 
Caretaker Government possesses limited powers and authority 
particularly in view of the fact that when it is appointed, there is no 
National Assembly in place and thus the all important aspect of 
accountability is absent. Further, the exercise of complete powers by 
the Caretaker Government goes against the doctrine of separation of 
powers which is the lifeline of any vibrant democracy. As noted earlier, 
the absence of legislature results in lack of checks and balances. The 
Caretaker Government also lacks the mandate of the majority of 
people, which is to be acquired by elected government through the 
general elections. Therefore, if a Caretaker Government is allowed to 
exercise complete powers available to an elected Government, it may 
make an attempt to continue to remain in office for a longer period of 
time or may take such decisions which may cause problems for the 
future elected government. 
14.    
As per the scheme of the Constitution, prior to the 18th 
Constitutional Amendment, where the President dissolved the National 
Assembly under Article 48(5), he shall, in his discretion, appoint care-
taker Cabinet. Similarly, if the President, dissolves the National 
Assembly on the advice of the Prime Minister, he is required to put in 
place an interim set up or a temporary arrangement to ensure the 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
18
continuity of the functions of the Government to run day-to-day affairs 
of the State till the appointment of duly elected Government with its 
Cabinet after completion of the election process. Unfortunately, after 
the promulgation of the Constitution of 1973, during the Martial Law 
regime of General (R) Zia-ul-Haq in 1985, by means of the 8th 
Constitutional Amendment, an infamous provision, namely, Article 
58(2)(b) was inserted into the Constitution, which provided that the 
President may dissolve the National Assembly in his discretion where, 
in his opinion, a situation has arisen in which the Government of the 
Federation cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of 
the Constitution and an appeal to the electorate is necessary. The said 
provision was later deleted by means of Thirteenth Constitutional 
Amendment in 1997. During the next Martial Law regime of General 
(R) Pervez Musharraf, the same was again inserted through the 17th 
Constitutional Amendment passed in 2003. However, after the 
restoration of democratic governance in the country, the new elected 
Government again deleted the said provision from the Constitution 
through the 18th Constitutional Amendment passed in 2010. It is to be 
noted that in exercise of the powers under the said provision, for more 
than one time, the National Assembly was dissolved and the elected 
Prime Minister/Cabinet were removed, and caretaker Prime Minister 
and Cabinet were appointed.  
15.   
The object and purpose of making reference to these 
provisions is to highlight that the functions of the elected Government 
have remained under serious threats. At the same time, it is also 
significant to point out that despite appointment of the Caretaker 
Prime Minister/Cabinet, no guidelines were ever provided laying down 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
19
the parameters to be observed by the Caretaker Governments in the 
exercise of their powers. As far as Constitution is concerned, Article 2A 
envisages that State shall exercise its powers and authority through 
the chosen representatives of the people and a comprehensive 
procedure, including qualifications and the disqualifications for the 
persons to be elected as Members of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) has 
been prescribed. Thus, it is the chosen representatives of the people 
who have to run the affairs of the State for a fixed term of five years. 
Such representatives of the people are required to ensure good 
governance, lay down policies, and ensure betterment of the general 
public through legislative and executive actions. On the contrary, a 
Caretaker Government as compared to an elected Government 
remains in office for a very limited period whose first and last concern 
is to ensure that fair, free, honest and just elections are held in the 
country. The concept of caretaker or interim Government, in absence 
of an elected government is in vogue in a number of countries since 
the ancient times. Inasmuch as, in the Constitution of some of the 
countries, the concept of caretaker government does not specifically 
find a place, yet the practice of appointing caretaker government is in 
vogue those countries. Such countries include India, Australia, 
Canada, Bangladesh, Holland, New Zealand, UK, etc. With the passage 
of time, all those countries have developed Constitutional conventions, 
on the basis of which the caretaker governments are put in place to 
run the affairs of the State during the interim period, i.e. till returning 
to power of the duly elected governments having full powers and such 
caretaker governments do not, in general, take any major policy 
decisions, including making appointments of civil servants, etc., 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
20
particularly in the manner it has been done by the Caretaker 
Government that had come into existence on completion of the term of 
the previous Government.    
16.   
At this stage, reference may be made to the Constitutional 
system of Australia. As per the scheme of the Australian Constitution, 
the caretaker government is expected to conduct itself in accordance 
with a series of conventions administered by the department of the 
Prime Minister and Cabinet, although there is no law compelling the 
caretaker government to do so. Usually, there is no separate 
appointment of a caretaker government and the outgoing government 
continues to function as caretaker government. During the 1975 
Australian constitutional crisis, the then Governor-General appointed a 
new government with the assurance that it would immediately advise 
a general election, and it would operate on a caretaker basis in the 
meantime. The political system of Australia ensures that a Cabinet is 
always maintained and that caretaker governments abide by the 
conventions. Any flouting of the conventions by a caretaker 
government would immediately come to light, and could go against 
them in the election campaign. In this regard, a document titled 
“Guidance on Caretaker Conventions” has been administered by the 
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Section 1.2 of the 
Caretaker Conventions provides that a caretaker government operates 
until the election result clearly indicates that either the incumbent 
party has retained power, or in the case where there is to be a change 
of government, until the new government is appointed by the 
Governor-General. The relevant clauses of the guidelines are 
reproduced hereinbelow: -  
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
21
“3. SIGNIFICANT APPOINTMENTS  
 
3.1 Governments defer making significant appointments 
during the caretaker period. When considering the advice it 
would give on whether an appointment qualifies as 
‘significant’, the agency should consider not only the 
importance of the position, but also whether the proposed 
appointment would be likely to be controversial.  
 
3.2 If deferring the appointment is impracticable, usually 
for reasons associated with the proper functioning of an 
agency, there are several options:  
 
the Minister could make an acting appointment 
where permissible;   
 
the Minister could make a short term appointment 
until shortly after the end of the caretaker period; or  
 
if those options are not practicable, the Minister 
could consult the relevant Opposition spokesperson 
regarding a full term appointment.” 
 
In Canada too, “Guidelines on the Conduct of Ministers, Secretaries of 
State, Exempt Staff and Public Servants during an Election” have been 
issued which provide, inter alia, as under: -  
GUIDELINES ON THE CONDUCT OF MINISTERS, SECRETARIES 
OF STATE, EXEMPT STAFF AND PUBLIC SERVANTS 
DURING AND ELECTION 
 
This does not mean that government is absolutely 
barred from making decisions of announcements, or 
otherwise taking action, during an election. It can and 
should do so where the matter is routine and necessary for 
the conduct of government business, or where it is urgent 
and in the public interest – for example, responding to a 
natural disaster. In certain cases where a major decision is 
unavoidable 
during 
a 
campaign 
(e.g., 
due 
to 
an 
international obligation or an emergency), consultation 
with the Opposition may be appropriate, particularly where 
a major decision could be controversial or difficult for a 
new government to reverse.  
 
Contracts, G&Cs and Appointment  
 
Appointments should normally be deferred. The 
Prime Minister’s Office must be consulted before making 
any commitments concerning appointments that cannot be 
deferred.  
 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
22
As far as UK is concerned, they have also issued similar guidelines in 
2010. Relevant guidelines are reproduced hereinbelow: - 
 
SECTION G  
Government Decisions 
 
1. 
During an election campaign the Government retains 
its responsibility to govern and Ministers remain in charge 
of their Departments. Essential business must be carried 
on. In particular Cabinet Committees can continue to meet 
and consider correspondence if necessary, although in 
practice this may not be practical. If something requires 
urgent collective consideration, the Cabinet Secretariat 
should be consulted.  
 
2. 
However, it is customary for Ministers to observe 
discretion in initiating any new action of a continuing or 
long-term character. Decisions on matters of policy, and 
other issues such as large and/or contentious procurement 
contracts, on which a new Government might be expected 
to want the opportunity to take a different view from the 
present Government should be postponed until after the 
Election, provided that such postponement would not be 
detrimental to the national interest or wasteful of public 
money.  
 
SECTION H  
Public and Senior Civil Service Appointments  
1. 
All appointments requiring approval by the Prime 
Minister, other Civil Service and public appointments likely 
to prove sensitive, (including those where Ministers have 
delegated decisions to officials or other authorities, such as 
appointments to certain NHS boards), should effectively be 
frozen until after the Election. This applies to appointments 
where a candidate has already accepted a written offer. 
The individual 
concerned 
should 
be 
told 
that 
the 
appointment will be subject to confirmation by the new 
Administration after the Election.  
 
2. 
It is recognised that, should this procedure result in 
the cancellation (or substantial delay) of an appointment 
by the new Administration, the relevant Department could 
be vulnerable to legal action by a disappointed candidate 
who had already accepted a written offer. To reduce the 
risk of this happening, Departments might wish to:  
 
 
recommend 
to 
their 
Secretary 
of 
State 
the 
advisability either of delaying key stages in the 
process, or of consulting the Opposition (e.g. on a 
short-list of candidates or a single name for final 
selection) where an appointment is likely to take 
effect just before or after an election;  
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
23
 
issue a conditional letter of offer, making it clear that 
the formal offer of the appointment will need to be 
confirmed by a new Administration.  
 
3. 
In cases where an appointment is due to end 
between the announcement of the Election and Election 
Day, and no announcement has been made concerning the 
new appointment, it will normally be possible for the post 
to be left vacant until incoming Ministers have been able to 
take a decision either about re-appointment of the existing 
appointee or the appointment of a new person. This 
situation is also likely to apply to any appointments made 
by Letters Patent, or otherwise requiring Royal approval, 
since it would not be appropriate to invite Her Majesty to 
make a conditional appointment.  
 
4. 
In the case of public and Senior Civil Service 
appointments, Departments should delay the launch of any 
open competition during an election period, to give any 
incoming Administration the option of deciding whether to 
follow the existing approach.  
 
5. 
In those cases where an appointment is required to 
be made, it is acceptable, in the case of sensitive Senior 
Civil Service positions, to allow temporary promotion or 
substitution. In the case of public appointments, the 
current term may be extended to cover the Election 
period, or as required, with the prior approval of the 
Commissioner for Public Appointments. This will allow time 
for new Ministers to take a decision about longer term 
appointment. In any cases of doubt, and particularly where 
circumstances make it difficult to apply these temporary 
arrangements, Departments should consult the Propriety 
and Ethics Team in the Cabinet Office.  
 
 
 The Cabinet Manual: A guide to laws, conventions and rules on the 
operation of government, 1st edition, October 2011 provides, inter alia, 
as under: -   
PARLIAMENT  
 
7. 
Parliament has a number of functions, which include: 
controlling national expenditure and taxation; making law; 
scrutinising executive action; being the source from which 
the Government is drawn; and debating the issues of the 
day. All areas of the UK are represented in the House of 
Commons, which provides a forum for Members of 
Parliament (MPs) to speak and correspond on behalf of 
their constituents, where they can seek redress if 
necessary.  
 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
24
8. 
Parliament comprises the Sovereign in Parliament 
and two Houses: the House of Commons, which is wholly 
elected, and the House of Lords, which comprises the 
Lords Spiritual and Temporal. Parliament has overall 
control of the public purse; the Government may not levy 
taxes, raise loans or spend public money unless and until it 
has authorisation from Parliament. The House of Commons 
claims exclusive rights and privileges over the House of 
Lords in relation to financial matters, and the powers of 
the House of Lords to reject legislation passed by the 
House of Commons are limited by statute.  
 
9. 
In the exercise of its legislative powers, Parliament is 
sovereign. In practice, however, Parliament has chosen to 
be constrained in various ways – through its Acts, and by 
elements of European and other international law.  
 
10. 
Parliament also scrutinises executive action. Indeed, 
the government of the day is primarily responsible to 
Parliament for its day-to-day actions. This function is 
exercised through a variety of mechanisms, such as the 
select committee system, Parliamentary questions, oral 
and written statements, debates in both Houses and the 
Parliamentary 
Commissioner 
for 
Administration. 
See 
Chapter Five for more on Parliament.  
[Emphasis supplied]  
 
11. 
By the Scotland Act 1998, the Government of Wales 
Acts 1998 and 2006 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998, 
Parliament devolved powers over areas of domestic policy 
such as housing, health and education to directly elected 
legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. 
Parliament retains the legal power to continue to legislate 
on these matters, but it does not normally do so without 
the consent of these devolved legislatures. See Chapter 
Eight for more on devolution. 
 
17. 
 
Coming to the case in hand, it may be mentioned here that 
this is not the first time that this Court is confronted with such a 
situation. Earlier too, identical matters have been dealt with by the 
Superior Courts of Pakistan. In the case of Khawaja Muhammad Sharif 
v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 Lahore 725) wherein the Lahore 
High Court held that caretaker Cabinets have to confine themselves to 
take care of the day-to-day administration of the State. Relevant 
portion of the judgment reads as under: -  
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
25
“26. The learned Attorney-General submitted that it is 
quite correct that Caretaker Cabinets have to take care of 
the day-to-day administration of the State. There may be 
no bar to take policy decisions if so required by the 
circumstances. He is right. Caretaker Cabinets have to 
confine themselves to take care of the day-to-day 
administration of the State. They can take all decisions 
requiring attention or action, may be having far-reaching 
effects, like in respect of war and peace or earthquake or 
floods. But they can neither forget the predominant 
position of their being Caretaker nor can they take undue 
advantage of their position either for themselves or for 
their political parties. They have to be impartial to 
everybody, including their rivals or opponents in the 
political fields. They cannot take advantage of their official 
position of Caretaker Government at the expense of other 
political forces or people at large. Neutrality, impartiality, 
detachment and devotion to duty to carry on day-to-day 
affairs of the State without keeping in view one’s own 
interest or of one’s party are the sine qua non of a 
Caretaker Cabinet.”  
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
In the case of Regional Commissioner of Income Tax v. Zaffar Hussain 
(PLD 1992 SC 869) Mr. Justice (R) Abdul Shakurul Salam J., in his 
dissenting note held as under: -  
“3. The following points are obvious and noteworthy. 
Firstly, that when the leader of the Opposition became 
care-taker Prime Minister, displeasure or rancour of the 
Opposition was given vent to by ordering the removal of 
the respondents from their service. It was rather petty. 
Secondly, as far as the authority of the Care-taker Cabinet 
is concerned, I had said in the case of "Muhammad Sharif 
v. Federation of Pakistan" (PLD 1988 Lahore 725) in the 
Lahore High Court that "Care-taker Cabinets have to 
confine themselves to take care of the day to day 
administration of the State. They can take all decisions 
requiring attention or action, may be having far-reaching 
effects, like in respect of war and peace or earthquake or 
floods. But they can neither forget the predominant 
position of their being Care-taker nor can they take undue 
advantage of their position either for themselves or for 
their political parties. They have to be impartial to 
everybody, including their rivals or opponents in the 
political fields. They cannot take advantage of their official 
position of care-taker Government at the expense of other 
political forces or people at large. Neutrality, impartiality, 
detachment and devotion to duty to carry on day to day 
affairs of the State without keeping in view one's own 
interest or of one's own party are the sine qua non of a 
Care-taker Cabinet. The judgment was upheld by this 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
26
Court in "Federation of Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad 
Saifullah Khan and others" (PLD 1989 SC 166). The action 
of removal of the respondents clearly did not fall within the 
scope or ambit of the Care-taker Cabinet whose primary 
function was to hold election and carry on( day to day 
administration with the civil servants available and not to 
throw out those who had been given employment by the 
previously elected Government.” 
[Emphasis supplied] 
 
In the case of Tanveer A. Qureshi v. President of Pakistan (PLD 1997 
Lahore 263) it has been held as under: - 
“26. Another principal attack on the formation of the 
C.D.N.S. by the petitioner was that the decision to set up 
such a council being of great importance and a matter of 
policy could not have been taken by the Caretaker Cabinet 
appointed under Article 48(5) of the Constitution. It was 
emphasised by Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, as also Mr. Abdul 
Rehman Cheema that the life of the Caretaker Cabinet 
being for 90 days it cannot take decisions of permanent 
nature but its activities are confined only to running day-
to-day affairs of the Government and should be geared 
towards holding of free and fair elections. Reliance has 
been placed on Kh. Muhammad Sharif v. Federation of 
Pakistan and 18 others PLD 1988 Lah. 725, Federation of 
Pakistan etc. v. Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao and others 
PLD 1992 SC 723 and Madan Murari Verma v. Ch. Charan 
Singh and another AIR 1980 Calcutta 95. 
 
28. Article 48(5) of the Constitution enjoins the President 
to appoint a caretaker Cabinet to run the affairs of the 
country pending the elections to the National Assembly 
and formation of Government. The use of word ‘Caretaker’ 
is not without significance and has to be given some 
meaning. The argument of the learned Attorney-General 
and Mr. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada that ‘Caretaker’ signifies the 
temporary nature of the tenure appears to be attractive 
and coming from a jurist like Mr. Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada is 
entitled to great respect but with due deference we are 
unable to agree with them. A Cabinet appointed by the 
Prime Minister to run the affairs of the country till the next 
General Elections by its very nature is temporary and the 
life of it is limited by the Constitution itself till the next 
General Elections which are to be held within 90 days. It 
was thus not necessary to use the word ‘Caretaker’ to 
indicate temporary nature of the tenure. On the other 
hand we are of the view that this word has been used in 
Article 48(5) to emphasises the purpose of appointment 
end the nature of the power available to the Caretaker 
Government. … …  
 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
27
30. 
… … Although no hard and fast rules can be laid 
down in respect of the, powers available to the Caretaker 
Cabinet to take decisions as the answer would depend 
upon facts of each case but generally speaking a major 
policy-decision which can await the formation of regularly 
elected Government without causing any disruption or 
danger to the functioning of the State or orderly running of 
the country should be left to be determined by the elected 
representatives of the people, moreso when the Caretaker 
Cabinet cannot claim to have been given any mandate by 
the people. There may not be any express restriction on 
the powers of the Caretaker Cabinet by the Constitution 
itself but the conclusion reached by us flows from the use 
of words “Caretaker Cabinet” in Article 48(5) of the 
Constitution as also very nature of the Caretaker Cabinet 
and the purpose for which it has been appointed. 
 
In the case of Khawaja Ahmad Tariq Rahim v. the Federation of 
Pakistan (PLD 1992 SC 646), this Court held as under: - 
 
“5. 
… … The object of the Care-taker Cabinet is to fill a  
temporary void, so that it may conduct day to day 
administration, without getting involved in matters of 
substantive importance or policy or subjects having far-
reaching effects, other than during an emergency or some 
urgency, till the new Government is installed. Above all, it 
is not supposed to influence the elections or do or cause to 
be done anything whereby which Government machinery 
or funds are channelled in favour of any political party.” 
 
In the case of Madan Murari Verma v. Choudhuri Charan Singh (AIR 
1980 Cal 95), the Court held as under: - 
“The President has accepted the resignation of the 
respondent No. 1 and his Council of Ministers and has 
asked them to continue in office “till other arrangements 
are made”. It is the limited pleasure indicated and in that 
field only in my opinion the respondent No. 1 and his 
Council of Ministers can function. There is no mention of 
any care-taker Government as such, in our Constitution or 
in the constitutional law, though Sir Ivor Jennings has 
described in his book -- Cabinet Government, Third Ed. p. 
85 the ministry that was formed by Mr. Churchill in 
England after the war before and pending the General 
election in 1945 as care-taker Government. But an 
extraodinary situation like the present, in my opinion, calls 
for a care-taker Government and therefore, the respondent 
No. 1 and his Council of Ministers can only carry on day-to-
day administration in office which are necessary for 
carrying on “for making alternative arrangements”. In 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
28
effect the President, in my opinion is therefore, not obliged 
to accept the advice that the respondent No. 1 and his 
Council of Ministers tender to him except for day-to-day 
administration and the Council of Ministers and the 
respondent No. 1 should not make any decisions which are 
not necessary except for the purpose of carrying on the 
administration until other arrangements are made. This in 
effect means that any decision or policy decision or any 
matter which can await disposal by the Council of Ministers 
responsible to the House of People must not be tendered 
by the respondent number 1 and his Council of Ministers. 
With this limitation the respondent No. 1 and the Council 
of Ministers can only function. And in case whether such 
advice 
is 
necessary 
to 
carry 
on 
the 
day-to-day 
administration till “other arrangements are made” or 
beyond that, the President, in my opinion, is free to judge. 
It is true again that this gives the President powers which 
have not been expressly conferred by the Constitution. 
But, in my opinion, having regard to the basic principle 
behind this Constitution under Article 75(3) read with 
Article 74(1) in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this 
case is the only legitimate, legal and workable conclusion 
that can be made. 
 
In the case of R. Krishnaiah v. State Of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2005 AP 
10) it was held that: - 
“10. In support of his submissions learned Counsel placed 
reliance 
on 
the 
recommendations 
of 
the 
Sarkaria 
Commission referred to by a Constitution Bench of the 
Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai and Ors. etc., etc. v. Union 
of India and Ors. etc., etc., , more particularly, 
recommendation No. 6-8-04(A) that after dissolution of 
the Assembly and till new Government takes over, during 
the interim period, the Caretaker Government should be 
allowed to function. But as a matter of convention, 
Caretaker Government should merely carry on day-to-day 
Government and desist from taking any major policy 
decision. He thus urged that issuing Ordinance permitting 
to withdraw amount from the Consolidated Fund of the 
State of Andhra Pradesh to meet (a) the grants made in 
advance in respect of the estimated expenditure for a part 
of the financial year commencing on the 1st April, 2004 as 
set forth in Column (3) of the Schedule appended to the 
Ordinance and (b) the expenditure charged on the 
Consolidated Fund of the State of Andhra Pradesh, for the 
part of the same financial year, as set forth in Column (4) 
of the Schedule, is nothing but a major policy decision 
which ought not to have been taken.  
……………………………… 
16. Therefore, the submission that the Ordinance could not 
have been promulgated is misconceived. Ordinance has 
the same force and effect as any Act of the State 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
29
Legislature and there is no prohibition in the Constitution 
that during the period an Assembly is dissolved and fresh 
Assembly has not yet been constituted, that Ordinance 
could not have been promulgated by the Governor. This 
act of the Governor will be deemed to be an exercise of 
power of the Legislative Assembly, as envisaged under 
Article 206 and even under Article 205 and as noticed 
above. Clause (3) of Article 203 is a prohibition not to 
withdraw from the Consolidated Fund any amount being 
subject to provisions of Articles 205 and 206 of the 
Constitution. 
The 
Ordinance 
having 
validly 
been 
promulgated there is hardly any force in the other 
submission that a situation has arisen where power must 
be exercised or directed to be exercised by the President of 
India under Articles 356 or 360 of the Constitution.” 
 
18. 
 
The crux of the above case-law and conventions/guidelines 
is that the Caretaker Government/Cabinet has to confine itself to the 
running of the day-to-day administration of the State. Indeed, it may 
take decisions required for ordinary orderly running of the state, but 
decisions having far-reaching effects should only be taken in 
extraordinary circumstances, like in war, earthquake, floods, etc. 
Although there may not be any express restriction on the powers of 
the caretaker government by the Constitution itself, but a major 
policy-decision which can await the formation of regularly elected 
Government without causing any disruption or danger to the 
functioning of the State or orderly running of the country should be left 
to be determined by the elected government. Thus, there can be no 
two opinions that the caretaker government has to exercise the 
powers for a limited purpose as it has been highlighted hereinabove, 
namely, relating to the elections and not to make fresh appointments 
of the civil servants or make appointments of the heads of the 
Autonomous, Semi-Autonomous Bodies, Corporations, Regulatory 
Authorities, etc., 
appointments 
on 
contract 
basis 
or 
allowing 
deputation or promotion to the civil servants without realizing the 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
30
scope of their efficacy to share higher responsibilities to run the affairs 
of the Government.  
19.   
In the context of instant case, besides relying upon the 
guidelines in the judgments noted hereinabove, one may conveniently 
pose a question, particularly in view of Article 48(5) of the Constitution 
and 
other 
constitutional 
provisions, 
as 
to 
why 
a 
caretaker 
cabinet/government appointed under Article 224 or as the case may 
under Article 224A of the Constitution, should not exercise powers 
available to a duly elected government? Answer to this question lies in 
the expression “Interim Cabinet” used in Article 48(5) of the 
Constitution, which enables to draw the inference that the interim 
Cabinet or caretaker Cabinet headed by a Prime Minister means a 
caretaker cabinet or a government, which has been  entrusted 
temporary charge of government during the period when the National 
Assembly is dissolved because ordinarily for a period of five years 
under Article 58, the National Assembly exists for the purpose of 
running the affairs of the State and in absence of elected Parliament, 
continuity of the governance system in the country has to be kept 
intact, otherwise running the affairs of the State would not be possible 
at all. In addition to it, although in our country in respect of the 
powers of the caretaker government no conventions have been 
developed and for such reasons the instant Caretaker Government 
indulged in taking vital policy decisions and making postings and 
appointments of heads of statutory bodies, postings and appointments 
in civil service, statutory bodies, autonomous, semi-autonomous 
bodies, 
corporations 
and 
regulatory 
authorities, 
including 
appointments on contract or accepting the services of various persons 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
31
on deputation by allowing them to occupy one step higher positions 
than the one, which they were holding previously.  
20.    
Petitioner Khawaja Muhammad Asif appeared and pointed 
out that caretaker government had made transfers/postings in civil 
service, statutory bodies, autonomous, semi-autonomous bodies, 
corporations and regulatory authorities, etc., the list of which has been 
made part of the record.   
21.   
The 
learned 
Attorney 
General 
while 
appearing 
in 
Constitution Petitions No.14 of 2013, etc., made a statement, already 
mentioned in the order dated 22.05.2013, which is reproduced 
hereinbelow: -  
“12. That the federation is already on record in taking up a 
principled stand before this Hon’ble Court that the care-
taker government needs only to confine their work to ‘day 
to day’ routine matters and effectively maintain the status 
quo for the incoming elected government, while submitting 
the views of the federation vide a CMA filed in 
Constitutional Petition Nos.14, 16 to 18 of 2013. It is 
submitted that vide the said CMA the Attorney General 
submitted that the care-taker government should avoid 
taking and controversial step and should not commit any 
process that is not reversible by the incoming elected 
government and further that the care-taker government 
should restrict itself to activity that is a) routine, b) non-
controversial, c) urgent and in public interest, d) reversible 
by the elected government; and e) any significant 
appointment thereby avoiding any major decisions except 
agreed to by the opposition. 
 
13. That the learned Attorney General whilst representing 
the case of the federation in the foresaid constitutional 
petitions also relied upon Australian Caretaker Conventions 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
32
and highlighted that the key elements of the code of 
conduct should include:  
 
a)  
avoiding major policy decisions, 
b)  
avoiding any significant appointments, 
c)  
signing any major contract, 
d) 
avoiding international treaty or commitment,  
 
 
etc.  
 
It was in the same light that the learned Attorney 
General submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the care-
taker government had deferred some items of the Council 
of Common Interests (CCI) in a recently held meeting and 
was 
not, 
therefore, 
making 
any 
binding 
decisions/commitments with IMF, World Bank or any other 
donor agency and had further decided not to enter into 
any binding agreement or treaty to bind the future elected 
government. It is submitted, therefore, that the care-taker 
government having earlier taken a principled stand cannot 
thereafter be allowed to recuse from the same.” 
 
Similarly, the Law Minister of the Caretaker Government also objected 
to the appointments, which were being made directly or indirectly 
under the verbal or written directions/observations of the caretaker 
Prime Minister or Cabinet Ministers or the heads of different 
Departments, Divisions, Ministries, etc. Relevant extract from his 
statement 
was 
published 
in 
Daily 
Dawan, 
Islamabad 
dated 
19.05.2013, which is reproduced hereinbelow: -  
“… caretaker Law Minister Ahmar Bilal Soofi has also 
criticised the postings and transfers being made by the 
government of Prime Minister retired Justice Mir Hazar 
Khan Khoso. 
He warned the caretaker set-up against transgressing its 
mandate by making undue transfers and postings in 
important government departments. 
In a letter to his cabinet colleagues a copy of which he also 
sent 
to 
the 
Prime 
Minister 
Secretariat 
and 
the 
establishment secretary, Mr Soofi said: “Cabinet members 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
33
should abide by the legal limitation they enjoy under the 
constitution. They should not trespass the mandate of the 
interim government. 
“I would again reiterate that we may continue the 
prevalent transparency and may not take action 
which may be counter-productive to the important 
role performed by the caretaker government.” 
Talking to Dawn on Sunday, the law minister confirmed 
that he had highlighted in the letter the issue of 
unnecessary postings and transfers being carried out by 
some of his colleagues in the cabinet. But he did not 
mention any specific posting or transfer. He said the letter 
had been dispatched on Saturday. 
In his letter Mr Soofi has also mentioned the cancellation 
of contract of two officials of the information ministry and 
the recent replacement of the National Highway Authority’s 
chairman. The letter also referred to a statement he had 
earlier made in cabinet that it was advisable to avoid 
making controversial appointments in major departments 
and leave them to the elected government.”  
22.   
We consider it appropriate to make reference of the case 
titled as In re: Abdul Jabbar Memon (1996 SCMR 1349) wherein it has 
been observed that the Federal Government, Provincial Governments, 
Statutory Bodies and the Public Authorities have been making initial 
recruitments, both ad-hoc and regular, to posts and offices without 
publicly and properly advertising the vacancies and at times by 
converting ad-hoc appointments into regular appointments. It was 
held that this practice is prima facie violative of Fundamental Right 
enshrined in Article 18 of the Constitution guaranteeing to every 
citizen freedom of profession, which must be discontinued forthwith 
and immediate steps should be taken to rectify the situation, so as to 
bring the practice in accord with the Constitutional requirement. But 
unfortunately it has been noticed that the guidelines/principles have 
neither been followed by the duly elected governments in the past nor 
by the caretaker governments. Inasmuch as, principle of transparency 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
34
has not been adhered to in the appointments of the Members of the 
Federal Public Service Commission under the Ordinance of 1977 to 
conduct tests/examinations for recruitment of persons to all Pakistan 
Services, Civil Services of the Federation and civil posts in connection 
with the affairs of the Federation and Provinces. No transparent 
system is in place to ensure merit-based selection of persons for 
appointment as the heads of the autonomous, semi-autonomous 
bodies, corporations, organizations, etc. Record available in archives 
would indicate that except for a shorter period, despite presence and 
availability of renowned knowledgeable and reputable personalities, 
these vacancies were allowed to be occupied by persons having 
connections with the higher functionaries of the State, who openly 
indulged in favourtism and nepotism. In such a scenario, how the 
object of making appointments on merit could be achieved, including 
by the elected government.    
23.    
It is to be noted that reportedly there are more than 100 
organizations/corporations, which are causing colossal loss of trillion of 
rupees to the public exchequer, like Pakistan International Airline, 
Pakistan Railways, Pakistan Steel Mills, PEPCO, PASCO, Utility Stores 
Corporations, OGDCL, NEPRA, PEMRA, PTA, KESC, SSGPL, NICL, etc. It 
is a fundamental right of the citizens of Pakistan under Article 9 of the 
Constitution that the national wealth/resources must remain fully 
protected whether they are under the control of the banks or the 
autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies.  
24.   
There are cases where favorites were appointed 
despite lacking merits to hold such posts/positions. Reference 
may be made to the case of Adnan A. Khawaja v. The State 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
35
(2012 SCMR 1434) where a convict, who was acquitted of 
criminal charges taking benefit of NRO, was appointed as the 
head of OGDCL. Similarly, in the case of Mir Muhammad Idris v. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2011 SC 213), the validity of the 
reappointment of Syed Ali Raza as President of the National Bank of 
Pakistan for fifth time for one year was challenged. The Court declared 
the said reappointment to be unconstitutional. Relevant para 
therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow: -  
“11. … Since, admittedly, the amendment made in section 
11(3)(d) of the Act of 1974 by the Finance Act, 2007 was 
unconstitutional and illegal, the appointment of respondent 
No.3 made under an unconstitutional and illegal legislation 
would not remain unaffected as the foundation on which its 
superstructure rested stood removed. The argument of the 
learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that the appointment 
of respondent No.3 was made by the Federal Government 
in exercise of the power conferred upon it by a legislative 
instrument passed by the concerned legislature, therefore, 
the same was not liable to be interfered with being a past 
and closed transaction is not tenable. If the appointments 
of Judges were affected on account of a similar defect in 
legislation, how the appointment of respondent No.3, who, 
too, was appointed under such an unconstitutional and. 
illegal amendment could be protected. 
13. 
… The reappointment of respondent No.3 Syed Ali 
Raza as President NBP by way of notification dated 
10.4.2010 is declared to be unconstitutional and he shall 
cease to hold office as President NBP with immediate 
effect.” 
In the same context, reference may also be made to the case of 
Chairman of NICL Ayaz Khan Niazi, who again was appointed 
without determining whether he is fit and proper person to hold 
the said post as a result whereof the government exchequer had 
to suffer an enormous loss, some of its portions have been 
recovered and still cases are pending before the Courts. This 
Court in Suo Moto Case No. 18 OF 2010 (PLD 2011 SC 927) 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
36
directed the Secretary Commerce to lodge complaint before FIA 
against the concerned persons for causing loss to the public 
exchequer. Similarly, the appointment of one Mr. Tauqir Sadiq as 
Chairman of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority was challenged 
before this Court on the ground that he did not posses the 
necessary credentials for holding the said office. The Court in the 
case reported as Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 
2012 SC 132), after considering the importance of the OGRA and 
scrutinizing the appointment process of its Chairman, declared 
his appointment void ab initio. There are other cases where some 
of the persons had succeeded in getting contract employments 
after their retirement in violation of section 14 of the Civil 
Servants Act, 1973 as well as instructions contained in ESTA 
Code. Reference may be made to Suo Motu Case No. 24 of 2010 
(PLD 2011 SC 277) wherein it was observed that in the disciplined 
forces, particularly, like police and FIA where people have to work in a 
well defined discipline, the persons supervising the forces were 
permitted to hold charge of the posts on contract basis. It may not be 
out of context to note that in terms of the definition of section 
2(1)(6)(ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, a person who is employed 
on contract does not fall within the definition of a civil servant, so his 
authority to command and maintain discipline can be well imagined 
from the fact that if a person himself is not a civil servant, he is 
considered only bound by the terms and conditions of his contract and 
not by the statutory law, because if any condition laid down in the 
contract is violative of any statutory provision, he would only be 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
37
subject to action under the said contract. In this view of the matter, 
the officers who were reemployed after retirement, were directed to be 
removed. In a recent case titled as Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana v. 
Pakistan (Constitution Petition No.59 of 2011), this Court found 
that the appointments of Chairman and Members of the 
Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan did not meet the 
requirement of the Securities & Exchange Commission of 
Pakistan Act, 1997 as such, the same too, were set aside. Last 
but not the least, this Court while hearing the case regarding 
implementation of directions issued in Suo Motu case No.16/2011 
regarding law and order situation in Karachi, directed the Government 
of Sindh to terminate the services of 86 employees appointed in 
different grades from 12 to 21 on contract basis in various provincial 
departments.     
25.    
During hearing of the case, it has been pointed out to 
petitioner Khawaja Muhammad Asif that although he being an elected 
Member of the Parliament had raised questions touching upon the 
transparency in the appointment of the heads of the autonomous, 
semi-autonomous bodies, corporations, regulatory authorities, etc., 
but in his own capacity as a public representative, he had also to 
ensure that all the appointments in such like bodies as well as the 
appointments on contract basis must be made in a transparent 
manner. In some of the countries, effective steps have been taken to 
stop such colossal loss of the national resources by day-to-day 
measures to improve the professional quality and political neutrality of 
appointments to public bodies/regulatory authorities by ensuring that 
selection in such bodies is based on merit, fairness and openness. It 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
38
may not be out context to note that in UK, an independent 
Commissioner is available to regulate, monitor, report and advice the 
public appointments, the performances etc. All the government 
departments while making such appointments are bound to follow the 
code of practice which has been issued by such Commissioner. 
Similarly, in Canada all appointments for Chief Executives, Directors 
and Chairpersons of public sector corporations are subject to strict 
merit-based system. It may be noted that elected government has to 
heavily rely upon public bodies to implement their policies and the 
object essentially cannot be achieved if honest and competent persons 
are not holding such public offices. While making such appointments, 
following parameters are to be considered: -  
(1) 
Integrity: 
 
Holders of public office should not place themselves under 
any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or 
organizations that might seek to influence them in the 
performance of their official duties.  
 
(2) 
Objectivity: 
 
In carrying out public business, including making public 
appointments, 
awarding 
contracts, 
or 
recommending 
individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public 
office should make choice solely on merit.  
 
(3) 
Accountability: 
 
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions 
and actions to the public and must submit themselves to 
whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.  
 
(4) 
Openness: 
 
Holders of public office should be as open as possible 
about all the decisions and actions that they take. They 
should give reasons for their decisions and restrict 
information only when the wider public interest clearly 
demands.  
 
(5) 
Honesty: 
 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
39
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private 
interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to 
resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the 
public interest.  
 
(6) 
Leadership: 
 
Holders of public office should promote and support these 
principles by leadership and example.  
 
26.   
Be that as it may, in order to ensure the enforcement of 
the fundamental right enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution and 
considering it to be a question of public importance, a Commission 
headed by and comprising two other competent and independent 
members 
having 
impeccable 
integrity, 
may 
be 
the 
Federal 
Ombudsman or Chairman NAB or a Member of Civil Society having 
exceptional ability and integrity, is required to be constituted by the 
Federal Government through open merit based process having fixed 
tenure of four years to ensure appointments in statutory bodies, 
autonomous bodies, semi-autonomous bodies, regulatory authorities 
to ensure appointment of all the government controlled corporations, 
autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies, etc. The Commission 
should be mandated to ensure that all public appointments are made 
solely on merits. The Commission should discharge mainly the 
following functions: -  
(i) 
Regulate public appointments processes within his remit;   
(ii) 
implement a Code of Practice that sets out the principles 
and core processes for fair and transparent merit-based 
selections;  
(iii) 
chair the selection panels for appointing heads of 
public/statutory bodies and chairs and members of their 
boards, where necessary;  
(iv) 
appoint Public Appointments Assessors to chair the 
selection panels for appointing heads of public/statutory 
bodies and chairs and members of their boards, where 
appropriate;  
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
40
(v) 
report publicly on a public/statutory body’s compliance 
with the Code of Practice, including examples of poor and 
good performance, and best practice;  
(vi) 
investigate complaints about unfair appointment process;  
(vii) Monitor compliance with the Code of Practice;  
(viii) Ensure regular audit of appointments processes within his 
remit;  
(ix) 
Issue an annual report giving detailed information about 
appointments 
processes, 
complaints 
handled, 
and 
highlights of the main issues which have arisen during the 
previous year. The annual report for the previous calendar 
year should be laid before the Parliament by 31st March; \ 
(x) 
Take any other measures deemed necessary for ensuring 
that processes for public sector appointments that fall in 
his remit are conducted honestly, justly, fairly and in 
accordance with law, and that corrupt practices are fully 
guarded against.  
 
27. 
  
The Code of Practice should provide foundations for 
transparent merit-based public appointments. All public appointments 
must be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on 
merit, out of individuals who through abilities, experience and qualities 
have a proven record that they best match the need of the public body 
in question. No public appointment must take place without first being 
recommended by the Commission. The appointments procedures 
should be subjected to the principle of proportionality, that is, what is 
appropriate for the nature of the post and the size and weight of its 
responsibilities. Those, selected must be committed to the principles 
and values of public service and perform their duties with highest level 
of integrity. The information provided about the potential appointees 
must be made public. The Commission may from time to time conduct 
an inquiry into the policies and procedures followed by an appointing 
authority in relation to any appointment. He may also issue a 
statement or publish a report commenting publicly on any breach or 
anticipated breach of the Code. The appointment of the successful 
candidate must be publicized.  
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
41
 
 
28.    
In light of discussion made hereinabove, we hold that: -   
(a) 
The Caretaker Cabinet/Prime Minister appointed under Article 
224(1)(2) or 224A, as the case may be,  is empowered to carry out 
only day-to-day affairs of the State with the help of the available 
machinery/resources/ manpower and also to watch national interest 
against war or national calamity or disaster faced by the nation, 
including terrorism, etc.   
(b) 
The civil servants who have already been appointed in 
accordance with the rules/regulations on the subject ought not to be 
posted/transferred, etc., except in extraordinary circumstances, that 
too, temporarily. 
(c) 
Major policy decisions including making of appointments, 
transfers and postings of the Government servants should be left to be 
made by the incoming government in view of the provisions of 
Constitution that the affairs of the State are to be run by the chosen 
representatives of the people. 
(d) 
As newly elected Government is mandated to perform its 
functions of achieving the object and purpose of welfare of the people 
for 
which 
it 
has 
been 
duly 
appointed, 
therefore, 
caretaker 
Cabinet/government/Prime Minister, having no mandate of public 
support, is only caretaker set up and due to this connotation should 
detach itself from making permanent policies having impact on future 
of the country.   
29.   
As we have noted hereinabove that since the Caretaker 
Government after its appointment, had made more than 400 
appointments, 
transfers 
and 
postings 
of 
Government 
servants/employees, including transfer on deputation with promotion 
to next higher grade or as the case may be, heads of autonomous, 
semi-autonomous bodies, regulatory authorities, heads of government 
controlled institution, etc., therefore, it may not be possible for this 
Court to discuss and deal with each and every case in these 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
42
proceedings, therefore, their cases shall be subject to declaration, 
which is being made hereinbelow.  
30. 
  
Thus, at the touchstone of the parameters laid down in the 
paras supra about the powers of the Caretaker Cabinet/Government, it 
is declared and held as under: -    
(a) 
The orders of appointment/deputation, transfers as 
well as postings, etc., of civil servants and Chief 
Executive Officers of statutory bodies, autonomous/ 
semi-autonomous bodies, corporations, regulatory 
authorities, 
etc., 
made 
by 
the 
Caretaker 
Cabinet/Prime Minister are hereby declared to be 
void, illegal and of no legal effect w.e.f. date of 
issuance of notifications respectively, except the 
transfers and appointments of senior government 
officers including the Chief Secretaries and IGP of 
any of the Provinces during the election process.  
(i) 
However, the Federal Government, in exercise 
of its powers would be authorized to allow to 
continue any of such appointments, transfers 
made by the Caretaker Cabinet/Government in 
the 
public 
interest, 
subject 
to 
following 
requisite provision of law. 
(ii) 
As far as the issue of notifications in the cases 
of (i) Mumtaz Khan (CMA 3451/2013), (ii) 
Muhammad Nadeem, AGM Marketing (CMA 
3480/2013) and (iii) General Syed Wajid 
Hussain, Chairman HIT Taxila are concerned, 
their notification of appointment shall remain 
frozen as process of their appointments had 
taken place before assumption of charge by 
Caretaker 
Cabinet/Government 
but 
their 
notifications were issued by the Caretaker 
Government. 
However, 
the 
Federal 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
43
Government through competent authority shall 
decide fate of their cases within 15 days after 
receipt hereof and copy of decision shall be 
sent to Registrar for our perusal in Chambers.  
(iii) 
Needless to say that if there are identical cases 
as noted in para (a)(ii), same shall be dealt 
with in the same manner. 
(b) 
All the orders of removal or transfers as well as 
posting on deputation of civil servants and Chief 
Executive Officers of statutory bodies, autonomous/ 
semi-autonomous bodies, corporations, regulatory 
authorities, etc., by the Caretaker Cabinet/Prime 
Minister are hereby declared void, illegal and of no 
legal effect w.e.f. date of issuance of notifications 
respectively, however: 
(i) 
the Federal Government would be empowered 
to continue the removal or transfers, etc., of 
Chief 
Executive 
Officers/heads 
of 
the 
departments, statutory bodies, autonomous/ 
semi-autonomous 
bodies, 
corporations, 
regulatory 
authorities, etc. in the 
public 
interest, subject to following requisite provision 
of law. 
(c) 
As far as contract employees are concerned, whose 
contracts have been cancelled or those to whom 
fresh contracts of service have been given by the 
caretaker Cabinet/Government, shall stand cancelled 
as holders of contract employment of both these 
categories deserve no interference in view of the 
judgment of this Court in the case of State Life 
Insurance Employees Federation of Pakistan v. 
Federal Government of Pakistan (1994 SCMR 1341), 
because no relief can be granted to them in these 
proceedings as no question of public importance with 
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
44
reference to enforcement of their any of the 
fundamental rights arises;  
(d) 
As far as the cases of the transfers of the civil 
servants/employees before the completion of tenure 
made allegedly in violation of the law laid down by 
this Court in Anita Turab case are concerned, the 
concerned departments of Federal Government shall 
examine their individual cases on the touchstone of 
the principles laid down in the said case. However, 
decision given on the complaint of any of the 
employees by this Court alleging violation of the 
principles enunciated in the judgment referred to 
hereinabove, shall be deemed to be in accordance 
with law.  
(e) 
The appointments in autonomous/semi-autonomous 
bodies, corporations, regulatory authorities, etc., 
made 
before 
the 
appointment 
of 
Caretaker 
Government shall also be subjected to review by the 
elected Government by adopting the prescribed 
procedure to ensure that right persons are appointed 
on the right job, in view of the observations made in 
above paras (Para. No. 25 & 26); and  
(f) 
The Federal Government through the concerned 
Secretaries shall take up the issue of postings of 100 
officers on deputation from Balochistan, as it was 
pointed out during the hearing of this case on 
22.05.2013 and accomplish the same, if required, in 
accordance with law.  
31. 
  
The Secretary Establishment is directed to communicate 
this judgment to all other Divisions, Ministries, Organizations, etc. for 
implementation of the same. 
32. 
  
The case of the Ombudsman be de-linked and it shall be 
heard/decided separately in view of the question of interpretation of 
law on the subject namely, Establishment of the office of Wafaqi 
Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983.  
Const.P.30/13 etc. 
45
33.   
In the result, Constitution Petition No.30 of 2013 partially 
allowed and the titled CMAs as well as CMAs No.2991 & 3015/2013 in 
Constitution Petition No.23/2012 are disposed of accordingly. 
 
 
CHHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON ________  
AT ISLAMABAD  
 
CHHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING