Article 199: FCC rules contractual appointment not challengeable
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has held that where an appointment is contractual and is terminated in accordance with its terms, a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable.
A two-judge bench, comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah, delivered the ruling in a petition challenging a Lahore High Court (LHC) judgment.
The former Chairman of the Drugs Court, Gujranwala, had initially filed the petition before the Supreme Court, but it was later transferred to the Constitutional Court. The Punjab government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, removed the petitioner from his position after noting that he had not decided a single case during his tenure.
The petitioner, appearing in person before the FCC, contended that due process was not followed and that his removal violated the law. He argued that the allegations against him—particularly that he failed to dispose of cases—were unfounded. In support of his submission, he referred to the Supreme Court order dated 17 July 2025, highlighting the observations concerning his contention that no show cause notice was issued and no inquiry proceedings were conducted. He also produced various documents to demonstrate that the allegations against him were baseless.
The judgment noted that the petitioner’s appointment was purely contractual in nature and was terminated by the competent authority after due consultation with the Chief Justice, Lahore High Court. It said that in such circumstances, there was no requirement to issue a show cause notice or to initiate formal inquiry proceedings.
The Court (FCC), while referring to the judgment of Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb in Prof. Dr. Qazi Tahir Uddin v. the Secretary, Pakistan Medical Commission [2022 PLC (C.S.) 805], stated; “It is settled law that where an appointment is contractual and is brought to an end in accordance with its terms, a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is not maintainable. Consequently, no prior show cause notice or inquiry was legally mandated.”
It noted that the record reflects that the Lahore High Court, on 12 February 2023, issued a show cause notice/notice to the petitioner regarding the reasons for non-disposal. The petitioner submitted his reply on 26 January 2024. Thereafter, the matter was taken up with the Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department, and consultation with the Chief Justice was sought on 2 April 2024 for initiation of the process of removal of the petitioner. The CJ LHC concurred in the petitioner’s removal, following that the notification for removal was issued on 15 April 2024.
The Additional Advocate General, Punjab, informed the Court that the petitioner was appointed for a period of two years on contract after consultation with the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court, but due to observations of the Administration Judge, Drug Court, that no disposal is being made, Provincial Government took the matter with the then Chief Justice and after due consultation, revoked the contract.
Advocate General of the Punjab submitted that since the appointment was on contract, no show cause notice or inquiry was required to be made. In response, petitioner informed that his contentions, with respect to inquiry and show cause notice, are duly recorded in the order of the Supreme Court, dated 17.07.2025, but till to date inasmuch as, despite the Supreme Court order, nothing has been placed on record to the effect.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026