QUETTA – Announcing detailed verdict on Monday, Balochistan High Court struck down the appointment of Capt. (R) Javed Khan as Chairman of the Balochistan Development Authority (BDA), declaring both his post-retirement extension as Director and subsequent elevation to the chairmanship illegal, without lawful authority, and of no legal effect.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Malakhail disposed of two consolidated Constitutional Petitions – C.P. No. 399 of 2025 filed by advocate Abdul Jalil Baloch, and C.P. No. 535 of 2025 filed by Habib-ur-Rehman and others – after hearing arguments on 11th May 2026. The court issued directives to the incumbent to vacate the charge within twenty-four hours and ordered the Government of Balochistan to appoint a regular Chairman BDA strictly in accordance with law without further delay.
Describing the judgment as a significant reinforcement of the rule of law and adherence to statutory requirements, Advocate Baloch Khan of Lincoln Law Firm – which represented the successful side in these proceedings – stated that the verdict contributes to the enforcement of transparency, legality, and institutional accountability in public administration. The firm’s role in securing the declaration that the BDA Chairman was occupying the position illegally and in violation of the applicable rules has been widely noted in legal circles.
The controversy centred on two notifications: one dated 6th February 2025, whereby the respondent – having attained superannuation on 28th February 2025 – was allowed to continue as Director BDA for a further three-year term, and a subsequent notification dated 1st March 2025 appointing him as Chairman BDA. The petitioners assailed both notifications as being in patent violation of the Balochistan Development Authority Act, 1974, and the BDA (BPS-16 and Above) Service Rules, 2024.
The court, while repelling the preliminary objection regarding maintainability, held that in matters involving unlawful occupation of a public office, any law-spirited person may invoke constitutional jurisdiction. Turning to the merits, the bench found that Rule 5 of the Service Rules, 2024, mandates a specific and exclusive method of recruitment for each post, leaving no room for administrative discretion.
The post of Director (Planning & Admin) is reserved for promotion from amongst serving General Managers (BPS-19), while the chairmanship is to be filled exclusively by transfer from officers of equivalent grade belonging to BCS/BSS cadres – a criterion the respondent admittedly did not satisfy at the relevant time.
The court further held that Rule 18 of the Service Rules – governing re-employment of retired employees – prescribes two cumulative and mandatory preconditions: necessity in the interest of the Authority, and prior approval of the Board. Neither condition was demonstrated by the respondents. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s judgments in Suo Motu Case No. 16 of 2011 and allied matters, the bench reiterated that post-retirement re-employment is permissible only in rare and exceptional circumstances involving compelling necessity or scarcity of specialized expertise.
A particularly striking finding of the court related to the Board of Directors meeting allegedly held on 13th April 2025, wherein the Board purportedly endorsed the respondent’s appointment — a meeting chaired by the respondent himself. The court found this wholly inconsistent with the foundational principle that no person can be a judge in his own cause, rendering the purported endorsement tainted by bias and procedural impropriety. The belated production of these minutes – surfacing for the first time in April 2026, nearly a year after the alleged meeting – further eroded their evidentiary worth.
The court also rejected the argument that Cabinet approval could cure the legal infirmities, holding that executive approval, even at the highest level, cannot validate an appointment made contrary to statutory rules.
—–
The judgment was authored by Chief Justice Muhammad Kamran Khan Malakhail.
