SHC stays reversion of BPS 18 officer to 30-year-old post
After serving for over three decades for Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, a BPS-18 officer was reverted to the BPS-7 grade on which he was appointed in 1995. However, the Sindh High Court on Thursday stayed the government's order serving major penalty on Muhammad Shakeel Baig.
The reversion to the 'lowest post' was preceded by an inquiry conducted by the Planning and Development Department on directions of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) which was probing alleged irregularity in Baig's first appointment in LUMHS as BPS-7 Lab Assistant post 1994. On May 23, 2025, Baig was served the office order of returning him to BPS-7 Lab Assistant post as if his career path resembled a snakes and ladders game. He was promoted to BPS-18 on October 19, 2020.
During the hearing on Thursday advocate Soulat Rizvi, the petitioner's counsel, briefed the court about all the stages from Baig's appointment to subsequent promotions. "The terms like out of cadre, out of turn promotion, illegal absorption or deputation don't apply to my client's case," he contended.
The lawyer maintained that his client is not an exception in the university as several other employees who were also appointed on the same post of the Lab Assistant have climbed their career ladder to the BPS-17 posts. Rizvi argued that the petitioner is being singled out as 18 such staff which made it from the lower to the officer grade posts are still working in LUMHS.
He also pointed out names of the officials who continue to work on their posts in blatant violation of the Supreme Court's order concerning the change of cadre. According to the lawyer, his client's demotion to BPS-7 has been carried out on the order of Sindh Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah which, he pleaded, is unlawful. He said the CM under the law can only appoint the vice chancellor, registrar, controller exams and director finance of LUMHS.
Rizvi raised a question asking if the LUMHS Ordinance, 2001, gave powers to the CM to overrule decisions of the syndicate and selection boards. He also asked if the NAB can conduct an inquiry about promotion of a university's employee. He maintained that the impugned inquiry did not even offer a chance of hearing his client and that he was not even issued a show cause notice.