Dr. Qaisar Anwar Vs Controlling Authority BISE, K.P and others

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

D.I.KHAN BENCH

(Judicial Department)

W.P.No.733-D/2025 with C.M.Nos.806, 807 & 826-D/2025.

Dr. Qaisar Anwar Versus Controlling authority BISE, K.P and others

JUDGMENT

For petitioner: M/s Ahmad Ali Khan and Khalid Mehmood, Advocates.

For respondents: Mr. Ahmad Abu Hanifa Gandapur, Asstt: A.G. for respondents No.1, 2 &

M/s Muhammad Ismail Alizai and Sajid Nawaz Saddozai, Advocates for respondents No.4 and 5.

Date of hearing: 29.01.2026.

INAM ULLAH KHAN, J.- The petitioner is a civil servant of the Elementary and Secondary Education Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, presently holding the substantive post of Principal (BPS-19). He claims to possess vast administrative experience and an unblemished service record throughout his career. Vide Notification No.

SO(B&T)E&SE/9-6/2022/Controller/BISE D.I.Khan, dated 11.07.2024, the petitioner was appointed as Controller of Examinations, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, D.I.Khan, on deputation basis against a vacant

post for a fixed period of three years. Subsequently, the competent authority finalized the terms and conditions of deputation vide Notification No. SO(B&T)/E&SE/9-6/BISE D.I.Khan/ Controller/Vol-II, dated 29.4.2025, wherein para- 15 expressly fixed the deputation period from 11.07.2024 to

2.After assuming charge, the petitioner claims to have discharged his duties diligently and efficiently, particularly in relation to sensitive and confidential examination matters, without any complaint, adverse remark, or disciplinary proceedings during his tenure. However, before completion of his statutory tenure, the petitioner was prematurely repatriated to his parent department vide impugned Notification No.

SO(B&T)E&SE/9-4/Controller/BISE D.I.Khan, dated 12.09.2025, while respondent No.4, who was serving as Secretary, BISE D.I.Khan, was assigned look-after charge of the post of Controller of Examinations. Aggrieved of the aforesaid notification, the petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. He has prayed as under:

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that on acceptance of this writ petition, this Honourable Court may graciously be pleased to declare the impugned Notification, dated 12.09.2025 as without lawful authority and of no legal effect, set aside the same and direct the respondents to act strictly in accordance with law and allow the

petitioner to complete his normal tenure as Controller of Examinations.”

3.The petitioner filed C.M.No.806-D/2025, for impleadment of Chairman, BISE, D.I.Khan as respondent No.5 being necessary party, which is allowed. In this regard office is directed to made necessary entries in the title of the instant writ petition as well as in the relevant record with red ink.

4.This Court, at the initial stage, vide order, dated 05.11.2025, suspended the operation of the impugned notification. The petitioner also filed C.M.No.807-D/2025 seeking implementation of the said interim order.

5.The respondents, through para-wise comments, denied the assertions of the petitioner and contended that complaints were received regarding his performance during HSSC Annual-I Examination, prompting the competent authority to withdraw his deputation. It was further asserted that the petitioner joined his parent department on 12.09.2025, whereas the writ petition was filed later, rendering the same infructuous.

6.Arguments heard and record perused.

7.The appointment and tenure of Controller of Examinations are governed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1990.

Section 15 of the Act reads as under:

“15. (1) The Secretary and the Controller of Examinations shall be whole-time salaried officers of the Board and shall be appointed by the Controlling Authority on such terms and conditions as it may determine.

(2)The Secretary and the Controller of Examinations shall hold office for a term of three years from the date of notification of their appointments and shall be eligible for re- appointment for such further period not exceeding three years as may be specified in the order of re-appointment.

(3)Notwithstanding sub-sections (1) and (2), the Controlling Authority may at any time review the work of the Secretary or the Controller of Examinations and, if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of the Board or for any other sufficient cause, may, after giving him an opportunity of showing cause, dispense with his services during the original or extended term.”

8.The question of protection of tenure has been conclusively settled by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Syed Mehmood Akhter Naayl v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 SC 195), wherein it was held:

“When the ordinary tenure for posting has been specified in the law or rules made thereunder, such tenure must be respected and cannot be varied except for compelling reasons which should be recorded in writing and are judicially reviewable.”

9.In Bacha Gul Wazir v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2015 SCMR 43), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that statutory tenure cannot be curtailed arbitrarily and without due process.

10.This Court, in Malik Maqsood Anwar v. BISE, Kohat (W.P.No.1639-P/2025, decided on 06.05.2025), while interpreting Section 15 of the very same Act, held:

“As per Section 15(2) of the Act, appointment of Controller of Examinations for a fixed term of three years affords protection and security of tenure. This statutory protection cannot be taken away merely on the ground that the appointment was on deputation.”

11.In Allauddin Akhtar v. Government of Punjab (1982 CLC 515), it was observed:

“The appointing authority cannot defeat the legislative intent of fixed tenure by describing the appointment as officiating or on deputation.”

12.In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was appointed against a statutory tenure post; his tenure had not expired; no show-cause notice was issued; and no performance review order satisfying Section 15(3) was placed on record. The plea of complaints, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section 15(3) of the Act. Mere withdrawal of deputation cannot override statutory protection.

Joining of the parent department by the petitioner does not validate an otherwise unlawful order.

13.For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned Notification, dated 12.09.2025, is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect

and is hereby set aside. The petitioner shall forthwith be allowed to resume duties as Controller of Examinations, BISE, D.I.Khan, and shall continue to hold the said office till completion of his lawful tenure, strictly in accordance with law.

14.Consequently, C.M.No.807-D/2025 stands disposed of as having become infructuous in view of the final decision of the writ petition.

Announced.

Dt:29.01.2026. - Sd /- Imran/* JUDGE

- Sd/-

JUDGE

(D.B)

Hon’ble Ms. Justice Farah Jamshed Hon’ble Mr. Justice Inam Ullah Khan