Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah
Provincial assemblies in Pakistan play a critical role in ensuring good governance, upholding the constitution, and maintaining executive accountability. Among all provincial institutions, the Punjab Assembly holds a special place because of its size, political influence, and administrative reach. For the assembly to function as a constitutional safeguard, it must have authority over the provincial bureaucracy and the executive. This article examines the legal and constitutional position of provincial bureaucracy in Pakistan, the role of the federal Establishment Division, and the limits of historical rules such as the 1954 Composition and Cadre Rules, while highlighting why provincial assemblies must assert control over provincial administrative posts.
At the heart of the matter is the question of whether federal executive orders can override the constitutional powers of provincial assemblies. Article 240(b) of the Constitution is explicit: provincial civil services and provincial posts fall under the constitutional authority of the respective provincial assemblies. This means that positions ranging from Chief Secretary to Assistant Commissioner are, constitutionally, the property of the provincial legislature. The provincial assembly exercises this authority by delegating administrative powers to the Chief Minister and the provincial cabinet, which then supervise the bureaucracy. The federal government has no direct constitutional role in these provincial appointments. This is a foundational feature of Pakistan’s federal system, which is embedded in the Constitution and ensures provincial autonomy in administrative matters.
Despite the clarity of the Constitution, federal bodies, particularly the Establishment Division, have historically attempted to influence provincial posts. The 1954 CSP Composition and Cadre Rules, predating the Constitution, are sometimes invoked to justify such federal intervention. However, these rules cannot supersede the Constitution. Article 6 of the Constitution establishes the supremacy of the Constitution over any other law, notification, or executive order. Therefore, any attempt by the federal government to reserve provincial posts for federal officers or assign them to All-Pakistan Services contradicts constitutional principles. The provincial posts legally belong to the provincial assembly, and any action to the contrary challenges the federal structure itself.
The Constitution’s provisions on federalism are clear. Articles 97, 121, 137, and 142 outline the distribution of powers between the federation and provinces, covering legislative, executive, and financial domains. Provincial matters, including bureaucratic appointments, fall entirely under provincial authority. Any move by the federal Establishment Division to reserve provincial posts for federal services undermines these constitutional guarantees.
The historical context of the 1954 rules is important. At the time of their formulation, Pakistan did not have a Constitution. These rules were used to establish the Civil Service of Pakistan (CSP), which formed the basis of later federal and provincial administrative services. Even today, provincial services like the Punjab Civil Service or DMG are derived from these colonial-era rules, often maintained through secret agreements rather than formal parliamentary legislation. The opacity of these agreements prevents transparency and violates principles of parliamentary oversight. Provincial assemblies have the right to demand copies of all such agreements from the federal government and determine whether they comply with constitutional standards.
A key point is the constitutional distinction between provincial and All-Pakistan Services. All-Pakistan Services exist to manage functions requiring joint federal-provincial oversight, such as railways, energy, or federal law enforcement. Under Articles 153 and 154, the Council of Common Interests (CCI) serves as a forum to formulate policies for these shared subjects. These services do not extend to purely provincial administrative posts. Assigning provincial posts to federal or All-Pakistan Services without provincial consent violates the federal arrangement. The Senate Standing Committee on the Establishment Division has also clarified that All-Pakistan Services should only occupy posts under joint jurisdiction, not provincial-exclusive positions.
Political and administrative accountability of provincial bureaucracy is linked to the provincial executive. The Chief Minister, provincial cabinet, and provincial bureaucracy must operate within the same constitutional framework. Article 130(6) makes the provincial cabinet accountable to the assembly, and by extension, the bureaucracy is also accountable to the provincial assembly. If federal authorities control provincial bureaucratic appointments, this accountability is disrupted. Without oversight from the provincial assembly, governance suffers, and the chain of responsibility is broken.
An example illustrates this principle. A member of the National Assembly cannot serve as a provincial Chief Minister or provincial minister. Similarly, federal officers should not permanently occupy provincial administrative positions. Federal control of provincial bureaucracy undermines federalism and accountability, leading to confusion in governance. The provincial executive must have the authority to manage its bureaucracy, ensuring that policies are implemented effectively and in line with local priorities.
The Lahore High Court has also recognized this principle. In 2021, the court issued an injunction regarding the deployment and appointment of provincial officers, emphasizing the primacy of provincial authority. Despite this, the Establishment Division continues to manage appointments, promotions, and transfers, violating both court orders and constitutional provisions. Such practices are inconsistent with the spirit of provincial autonomy and the principles of federal governance.
Provincial assemblies must assert their constitutional rights over bureaucratic appointments. The assembly is the sole forum that can question the federal government about the legal basis of reserving provincial posts for federal services. It can demand all agreements, including secret arrangements that underpin such allocations. If these agreements fail to meet constitutional standards, the assembly has the authority to reject them. Upholding the supremacy of the Constitution is essential to prevent historical rules or secret administrative agreements from undermining provincial autonomy.
Executive oversight is vital for good governance. The provincial assembly, through its legislative, financial, and administrative oversight powers, ensures that the bureaucracy works efficiently, transparently, and accountably. Without such oversight, provincial governance is compromised, and citizens’ needs are inadequately addressed. Provincial control over appointments guarantees that officers respond to local priorities rather than federal directives, ensuring harmony between political leadership and administration.
In conclusion, empowering the Punjab Assembly to exercise full control over its bureaucracy is not just a legal requirement but a practical necessity. Provincial posts are constitutionally the property of the assembly, and the executive and bureaucracy operate within this framework. Federal attempts to reserve posts or maintain control over provincial officers violate constitutional principles and undermine accountability. Strengthening the assembly’s oversight ensures better governance, respects federalism, and maintains harmony between political leadership and bureaucracy. By asserting its constitutional authority, the Punjab Assembly can safeguard provincial autonomy, ensure executive accountability, and make governance responsive to the people it represents.
