A recently published seniority list of the police in Class 16 in Sindh has postponed serious irregularities in the recruitment process, including the appointment of officers under the legal minimum age of 18.
The results have created new doubts about the transparency of employment within the Sindh police, where some officers were allegedly introduced into ages as small as 16 years.
According to Pakistan’s “Officials (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973”, is the minimum age of public service 18.
However, according to the list issued by the Inspector General for Sindh Police Ghulam Nabi Memon, however, several officials were recruited well in advance of this legal age.
An officer, Mehboob Ali Mithani, was allegedly employed after 16 years, 10 months and 11 days old. Another, Babar Ali Sheikh, ended in just 16 years and 3 months. Other names, including Imtiaz Ali Thebo, Zahoor Ahmed Lashari and Shah Jehan Lashari, also appeared on the list of age under 17 years at the time of employment.
Read: Seniority list of DSPs raising the eyebrows
Meanwhile, the same department recently declared three applicants who were not eligible for recruitment solely to exceed the upper age limit by a few days or months.
Among them, Shehzad Khan missed out of eligibility by five days, Farhan Ali Ahmed with three months and 12 days, and Noor Muhammad by only a month.
The inconsistency has sparked criticism of a clear double standard in enforcement of age rules. While some were disqualified for less excess, others with significant age deficits were recruited and later promoted to senior ranks.
The list also includes officers who hardly meet the age limit, such as Mumtaz Rahoo (18 years, 2 days) and Qamaruzzaman (18 years, 6 days). Observers say that if previous recruits are properly investigated, the list of violations would include hundreds rather than dozens of names.
Questions have also been raised about the recruitment boards and appointment committees involved in the approval of such cases. If these irregularities come from documentation errors, critics say, those responsible must be held responsible.
Express news Previously, similar questions reported on a separate seniority list over 500 deputies Superintendents of Police (DSPS), which reveals disagreements of age, dates of appointment and alleged campaigns out of turn.
Many of these individuals are now in powerful positions and enjoy wages, government vehicles and other benefits – despite questionable eligibility at the time of their appointment.
