ARAB vs PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT — 2026 SCMR 300 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ARAB VS PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT. Art. 199---Employment---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Disputed facts, resolution of---Issuance of appointment order---Exclusion of names of the petitioners from the list of new appointees forwarded to the Bank for opening of salary accounts without withdrawal/cancellation of appointment orders. Petitioners filed constitutional petitions for releasing their salaries, which were dismissed by the High Court for want of jurisdiction owing to questions involving resolution of disputed/controversial facts. Validity. While dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the disputed question of fact could not be resolved, it must also be considered that to effectively bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under this article, the alternate remedy, if any available, is not only to be adequate but also equally efficacious under the law and commensurate to the same purpose which is sought to be achieved through a Constitutional petition under article 199. Extraordinary jurisdiction is intended primarily for providing an expeditious remedy in a case where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts. Once the appointment letters were issued without any rider or condition, then there was no question of enlistment of the names of the petitioners in the provisional list, as apparently, all codal formalities were completed before issuance of the appointment letters, which was the standard practice and procedure in the recruitment process of government departments. Petitioners did not raise any factual controversy or disputed question of fact, but approached the High Court for releasing their salaries and relied on their appointment letters which were not denied or controverted in the comments filed by the respondents. Even if the appointment letters were issued to the petitioners without satisfying or complying with the codal formalities, the High Court, rather than outrightly non-suiting the petitioners, or without indulging in the realm or sphere of factual controversy, could have easily called upon the concerned Department on the basis of available documents, to make inquiries regarding the veracity and legitimacy of the appointment letters; how the appointment letters were issued; who issued the appointment letters and how these were recalled; whether the appointment letters could be recalled without any show cause notice or without providing any opportunity of being heard; and who was actually responsible of issuing the appointment letters (if the codal formalities were not fulfilled) and what departmental action was proposed or taken against the responsible persons who misled and defrauded the petitioners. Petitioners were made the scapegoat and victim of severe departmental actions and highhandedness while the actual wrongdoers and malefactors were always exonerated. Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, in circumstances.

ARAB vs PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY HEALTH DEPARTMENT — 2026 SCMR 300 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR