DLP Report
PESHAWAR
The Peshawar High Court has declared illegal the joint seniority list prepared for District Emergency Officers (DEOs) and Deputy Directors of Rescue 1122 for promotion to Grade-19, along with the Emergency Rescue Council meeting that endorsed the list.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Ijaz Anwar and Justice Babar Sattar issued the ruling while hearing a writ petition filed by Bilaluddin and other DEOs through their counsel, Ali Gohar Durrani, Advocate.
The petitioners contended that DEOs and Deputy Directors belonged to separate cadres and performed different functions. While Deputy Directors primarily handled administrative responsibilities, DEOs were engaged mainly in operational and field duties. Their counsel argued that separate seniority lists should therefore have been prepared for the two cadres instead of a combined list for promotion to Grade-19 posts of Director.
The court was informed that the matter had previously been taken up by the High Court, which had directed the authorities to constitute a committee to resolve the seniority issue in accordance with the relevant rules. However, at a meeting held on June 23, 2026, the Emergency Rescue Council decided to retain the existing joint seniority list on the basis of recommendations submitted by officials from various departments.
Mr Durrani challenged the legality of the meeting, arguing that it had been convened and held in the absence of the Secretary Relief, who was the competent authority in the matter. He maintained that a decision taken without the participation of the competent authority could not have legal validity.
The petitioners had also requested the court to restrain the authorities from convening a Departmental Promotion Committee meeting or making Grade-19 promotions on the basis of the disputed seniority list.
After hearing the arguments, the bench allowed the petition and set aside the decision to maintain the joint seniority list.
The court observed that as the Emergency Rescue Council meeting had been held without the presence of the competent authority, the proceedings based on that meeting were unlawful and contrary to the Constitution and applicable rules.
