Summary: The petitioner had challenged the appointment of Computer Operators in the District Judiciary Upper Chitral. Imran Ullah claimed he was discriminated against during the interview process for the post. The petitioner argued that he was declared failed in the interview without reason despite securing 60 marks out of 75 in the written test. The court held that it cannot substitute its opinion for that of the interview panel`s assessment, as the marks awarded during the interview are based on subjective criteria. Courts cannot interfere with the interview panel`s subjective assessment. The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of merits.

Summary: (a) Where the lower fora make an error of law in deciding a matter, it becomes a jurisdictional issue, since such fora are only vested with the jurisdiction to decide a matter correctly. Therefore, such a decision can be quashed under constitutional jurisdiction as being in excess of lawful authority, in terms of Article 4 of the Constitution. It thus becomes a case proper for interference by a High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The powers of the High Court under Article 199 state that, ordinarily, the High Court does not re-examine evidence or disturb findings of fact. However, it can interfere if the findings are based on non-reading or misreading of evidence, erroneous assumptions, misapplication of law, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, or arbitrary exercise of powers—especially when the District Court, acting as the final appellate court, reverses the findings of the trial court on unsupported grounds. The scope of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution in such cases is limited to instances of misreading or non-reading of evidence, or where the finding is based on no evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The High Court should not disturb findings of fact through reappraisal of evidence in constitutional jurisdiction or use this jurisdiction as a substitute for revision or appeal. Interference with the lower court`s findings of fact is beyond the scope of the High Court`s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. (b) The object of exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (Constitution) is to foster justice, preserve rights, and rectify wrongs. The appraisal of evidence is primarily the function of the Trial Court, and in such cases, the Family Court, which has been vested with exclusive jurisdiction. In constitutional jurisdiction, where findings are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, and where the order of the lower fora is found to be arbitrary, perverse, or in violation of law or evidence, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction as a corrective measure. If the error is glaring and patent to the extent of being unacceptable, the High Court can interfere—such as where the finding is based on insufficient evidence, misreading or non- consideration of material evidence, erroneous assumptions of fact, patent errors of law, consideration of inadmissible evidence, excess or abuse of jurisdiction, arbitrary exercise of power, or an unreasonable view of the evidence. The legislature intended to place a full stop to family litigation once it is decided by the appellate court. However, it is regrettably observed that High Courts routinely exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as a substitute for appeal or revision. More often, the purpose of the statute—i.e., expeditious disposal of cases—is compromised and defeated. No doubt, there may be certain cases where intervention is justified, but a significant number fall outside this exception.Therefore, it is high time that the High Courts prioritize the disposal of family cases by constituting special family benches for this purpose. Thus, the legal position remains that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for revision or appeal, and the High Court, in constitutional jurisdiction, cannot reappraise the evidence and decide the case on its facts. Interference is limited, an exception rather than the rule.

Summary: (a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre‑emption Act, 1987 --- S. 13—Talb‑i‑Muwathibat—Production of informer—Mandatory nature— The pre‑emptor testified that he learned of the impugned sale on 25‑07‑2010 from one “Umar” and immediately voiced his intention before two witnesses (PW‑2 & PW‑3). Umar—the sole source of knowledge—was never produced, nor was his absence explained. Supreme Court reiterated that the informer’s examination is foundational: without it, time, place, and mode of knowledge remain uncorroborated, rendering the Talb‑i‑Muwathibat unproved. A three‑month gap between mutation (10‑04‑2010) and alleged knowledge further eroded credibility. Concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts upholding Talb were based on non‑reading of critical evidence and were rightly set aside by the High Court. Cited cases: Abdul Rehman v. Haji Ghazan Khan 2007 SCMR 1491; Subhanuddin v. Pir Ghulam PLD 2015 SC 69. (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 --- S. 115—Revisional jurisdiction—Scope to reverse concurrent findings— Where lower courts ignore material defects—misreading, non‑reading, or misconstruction of evidence—High Court may lawfully intervene in revision. Failure to establish statutory pre‑conditions for pre‑emption is a jurisdictional error going to the root of the decree; hence High Court’s interference was proper. (c) Pre‑emption—Promptness and credibility of Talb— Lapse of more than three months between sale mutation and alleged first demand negates the statutory requirement of immediacy; absence of corroboration through the informer renders witnesses’ testimony insufficient. Strict compliance is sine qua non; benefit of doubt goes against pre‑emptor. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; Peshawar High Court judgment dated 21‑10‑2016 upheld; respondent’s suit for pre‑emption finally dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 --- Arts. 4 & 10-A --- Right to fair trial and due process --- Postgraduate medical trainees --- Termination without inquiry --- Direct invocation of policy clause by disciplinary authority --- Legality Where the Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department directly terminated the services of postgraduate trainees without initiating inquiry through the competent Departmental Committee as mandated by Clause 13.3 of the Postgraduate Residency Policy, it was held to be a violation of Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution. The Secretary, who also acts as the appellate authority under the policy, could not unilaterally issue termination orders without affording the petitioners the right of appeal. Such action amounted to denial of fair trial and due process, rendering the impugned termination orders unlawful. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 --- Art. 199 --- Writ jurisdiction --- Maintainability --- Disciplinary action taken without inquiry --- Availability of alternative remedy under policy --- Effect Although Clause 13.3 of the relevant policy provides for an appellate mechanism, where the impugned termination orders themselves originate from the appellate authority without observance of inquiry or departmental process, the bar of alternate remedy does not apply. The writ petition was maintainable as the action complained of was taken in breach of the petitioners’ fundamental rights and without lawful authority. (c) Policy on Postgraduate Residency Training --- Cls. 13.3 & 13.4 --- Departmental discipline --- Participation in strike --- Termination of trainees --- Requirement of departmental inquiry --- Sworn affidavits and departmental certification of non-involvement Clause 13.4 prohibits participation in political activity or strike and permits termination for such acts. However, Clause 13.3 provides a mandatory right of appeal against such action through the Departmental Committee. In the present case, petitioners produced sworn affidavits, duty rosters, attendance records, and certifications from Heads of Departments affirming non-involvement in any protest. In the absence of any inquiry or evidentiary process, unilateral termination based on presumption of misconduct was declared unlawful. (d) Medical regulation --- Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) --- Cancellation of practicing licenses --- Scope of regulatory jurisdiction --- Right to be heard The PMDC, being a regulatory body, is competent to issue notices regarding cancellation of licenses. However, such regulatory action must conform to the principles of natural justice. Petitioners sought time to file a reply and did not press the petition to that extent. The High Court directed the PMDC to consider the petitioners’ explanation and decide the matter through a reasoned, lawful order within four weeks. Cited Cases: ABWA Knowledge Pvt. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Lahore 436) Mian Ali Asghar v. Government of Punjab (2020 CLC 157; 2021 MLD 370) PLD 2022 SC 72 (affirming ABWA Knowledge Pvt. Ltd.) Disposition: Writ petition allowed in part. Termination orders dated 30.04.2025 and 02.05.2025 set aside for being violative of due process. Petitioners directed to submit reply to PMDC regarding cancellation of licenses; PMDC to decide matter strictly in accordance with law within four weeks of filing

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Court conditionally suspended the decree and Office refused to issue certified copy as said condition had not been complied with. Office was directed to issue certified copy; however, as of abundant caution, the Office while issuing certified copy, if so deemed necessary to ensure that the same may not be misinterpreted, can give a note/endorsement on the certified copy of the order that the condition mentioned in the order has not yet been complied with.

Summary: Court conditionally suspended the decree and Office refused to issue certified copy as said condition had not been complied with. Office was directed to issue certified copy; however, as of abundant caution, the Office while issuing certified copy, if so deemed necessary to ensure that the same may not be misinterpreted, can give a note/endorsement on the certified copy of the order that the condition mentioned in the order has not yet been complied with. 400Writ Petition- Criminal Proceedings- Direction to Subordinate Court 14839-24 STATE VS SCJ ETC Mr. Justice Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh 04- 06- 2025 2025 LHC 4418

Summary: (a) Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974--- ----R. 5(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Service matter---Appointment / recruitment---High Court, jurisdiction of---Authorities were aggrieved of directions issued by High Court to adjust respondents / candidates against posts in question---Plea raised by authorities was that in the matter of appointments, there were disputed questions of facts which could not be decided by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction---Validity---When a controversy regarding appoint or recruitment process is triggered, High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction cannot record evidence and cannot be involved deeply in factual controversy, which cannot be thrashed out without leading evidence by parties---Available record and comments filed by concerned department can be vetted and scanned in order to arrive at a just conclusion on whether the matter can be adjudicated upon based on available and admitted documents without dilating upon factual controversy--- Supreme Court remanded the matter to High Court for deciding it afresh on merits, after providing ample opportunity of hearing to parties and set aside order passed by High Court---Appeal was allowed. Special Secretary-II (Law and Order), Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar v. Fayyaz Dawar 2023 SCMR 1442; 2023 SCP 199 and Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others 2011 SCMR 1813 rel. (b) Words and phrases--- ----'Mutatis mutandis'---Connotation---Expression mutatis mutandis generally applies for making certain adjustments of features in a new situation of framework, as a shortcut (an alternate route that is shorter than the one usually taken) in order to avoid reiterating or retelling the same provisions with minor variations---Expression mutatis mutandis applies from one case to another with required alterations or modifications within the different set of circumstances of cases to avoid repetition by signifying that primary criterions have to apply with certain vicissitudes. Black's Law Dictionary (Revised 4th Edition, 1968; West Publishing Co.); Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law (1st Edition, 1959; Sweet and Maxwell); Oxford Dictionary of Law (5th Edition, 2003; Oxford University Press); Bouvier's Law Dictionary (3rd Revision, 1914; Boston); Oxford English Dictionary (3rd Edition, 2003; Oxford University Press); Cambridge English Dictionary (Cambridge University Press); Collins English Dictionary (via Dictionary.com, 2012 Edition); Muhammad Sharif v. The State PLD 1999 SC 1063; Vasudev Anant Kulkarni v. Executive Engineer 1995 ACJ 97; Ashok Service Centre v. State of Orissa 1983 2 SCR 363 and R. v. Gauthier [1977] 1 SCR 441 rel. For Petitioners: Jawad Dero, Advocate General, Sindh, Sibtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General, Ms. Lubna Pervez, Advocate-on-Record, Ghulam Ali Brahmani, Secretary SGA&CD. For Respondents: Mirza Sarfaraz Ahmed, Mehfooz Ahmed Awan, Rukhsar Ahmed Junejo, Manzoor Hussain Larik, Advocates Supreme Court, Sajid Ali Channa, Badaruddin Memon, Syed Tanveer Abbas Shah, Abdul Naeem Pirzada, M. Yaseen Khaskheli, Advocates High Court, Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, Abdul Sattar Khan and Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocates-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th June, 2025.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 16.05.2024 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad passed in Crl. Appeal No. 148 of 2022 and Crl. Appeal No. 170 of 2022, Crl. Revision No. 29 of 2022 and M. R. No. 02 of 2022). (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Improvements made by witnesses---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---In his FIR as well as supplementary statement complainant did not nominate the two accused who had entered the shop and had committed the offence---However in his supplementary statement he suspected convict "Ch", being an ex-employee of shop, as an accomplice who was sitting on the motorcycle outside the shop upon which both the accused had fled---Admittedly, Branch Manager was not an eye-witness of the occurrence as he was not present in the shop at the time of the occurrence---However, complainant and a Manager were the witnesses of the occurrence---Both the petitioners were not previously known to eyewitnesses and they both were also not aware of their names---Record transpired that eyewitnesses nominated both the petitioners in their statements at the trial with explanation that names of both the petitioners came to their knowledge during investigation---Record revealed that due to implication of convict "Ch" as a suspect by complainant in his supplementary statement, the convict "Ch" as well as the petitioners were arrested by Investigating Officer on next day of the occurrence under Section 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) as suspects as the FIR was against unknown accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Contradictions in the statements of witnesses---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---Occurrence was of 28.12.2020 at 10:20 pm---According to the statement of Investigating Officer, on the next day of occurrence, he recovered two empties of .30 pistol from the place of occurrence i.e. shop and he also took into possession a mobile phone with a SIM from the counter of shop, which belonged to the petitioner---Call Data Record (CDR) revealed of telephonic contacts between the petitioner and the convict "Ch"---Surprisingly, witnesses had not mentioned in their statements recorded at the trial about the recovery of the mobile phone of the petitioner from the counter of the shop on 29.12.2020 by Investigating Officer---In contradiction to the statement of Investigating Officer about recovery of the said cell phone from the counter of the shop on 29.12.2020, according to the statement of eyewitness, the said phone was recovered by Investigating Officer in his presence on 28.12.2020---Foisting the recovery of cell phone by Investigating Officer from the counter of the shop on the next day of the occurrence after arrest of the convict "Ch" and the petitioners to create incriminating evidence against them could not be ruled out of consideration---According to Investigating Officer two crime empties were recovered on 29.12.2020 from the shop wherein the occurrence had taken place---Complainant and a witness had not mentioned about recovery of two crime empties by Investigating Officer from the shop on 29.12.2020---While contradicting the statement of Investigating Officer, witness stated that the said crime empties were recovered by Investigating Officer on the same day i.e. 28.12.2020---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Test identification parade---Infirmities---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---Complainant and eyewitness were witnesses of the identification parade of the petitioners and convict "Ch" which was conducted on 08.1.2021 in the premises of Central Jail, under the supervision of Assistant Commissioner/Sub-Divisional Magistrate---Record transpired that identification parade of the petitioners and the convict "Ch" was not conducted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate in accordance with law---During identification parade proceedings objections were raised by the petitioners and the convict that prior to the identification parade, their photographs were taken in the police station but the said objection was not dealt with/attended by Sub-Divisional Magistrate---Identification parade proceedings of petitioners and the convict had been brought on record by the prosecution, according to which, the petitioners and the convict were identified by the witnesses and they were assigned numbers as witness No. 1, witness No. 2, witness No. 3 and witness No. 4 respectively by Sub-Divisional Magistrate---In the identification parade proceedings of petitioner, three witnesses i.e. Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were mentioned thereon but there was no mention in his identification parade proceedings about witness No.2; whereas in the identification parade proceedings of other petitioner and the convict, names of all four witnesses had been mentioned with their correct serial numbers---During the identification parade proceedings, Sub-Divisional Magistrate had recorded statements of four witnesses of the identification parade in narrative form---Identification parade report revealed that the witnesses had simply identified the petitioners and the convict without any reference to their description and without assigning the role allegedly played by each of them in the occurrence---In the circumstances, the identification parade of the petitioners by the witnesses without stating the role allegedly played by them in the occurrence was not inline with Article 22 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, hence it was of no evidentiary value and could not be relied upon for conviction of the petitioners---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Mehboob Hassan v. Akhtar Islam and others 2024 SCMR 757; Abdul Hayee v. State 2025 SCMR 281 and Abdul Qadeer v. The State 2024 SCMR 1146 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---CCTV footage---Faces of culprits not visible---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---CCTV footage of the shop with regard to the occurrence, procured during investigation and recorded in USB, duly played at the trial and relied upon by the trial Court for conviction of the petitioners, was also played in the High Court---CCTV footage was of no avail to the prosecution and it could not be made a basis for conviction of the petitioners as in the CCTV footage, the faces of the culprits were not visible and it was showing only the back of the culprit who had a scuffle with the deceased---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. (e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b) & 398---Qatl-i-amd, attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, when the offender is armed with a deadly weapon---Reappraisal of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Recovery of crime weapon on the disclosure of petitioners-accused---Lack of independent corroboration---Petitioners were charged for committing murder of the deceased while attempting to commit robbery---According to the prosecution, on 17.1.2021, on the disclosure and pointation of petitioner .30 bore pistol with four live cartridges were recovered in presence of two Police Constables/recovery witnesses from a cattle shed---As per prosecution version, from the same cattle shed, a .30 bore pistol with five live cartridges were recovered on 20.1.2021 on the disclosure and pointation of other petitioner---No disclosure memos of the petitioners were prepared in that regard by the Investigating Officer---No independent witnesses of the locality/workers of the cattle shed as well as owner of the cattle shed were associated to attest the alleged recoveries nor they had been produced at the trial to lend independent corroboration to the alleged recoveries of pistols and live cartridges on the pointation of the petitioners---Such fact weakened the prosecution case and led to possibility of foisting the recovery of weapons by the Investigating Officer to lend corroboration to the prosecution version---Pistol allegedly recovered on the pointation of petitioner on 17.01.2021 was sent to the Forensic Science Agency on 22.01.2021 with two crime empties already lying therein---Record also revealed of break in chain of custody of the weapon---Positive report of Forensic Science Agency was issued on 08.02.2021---Though positive report of a firearm expert was a valid piece of corroborative evidence but its weight was heavily dependent on the reliability of the weapon recovery---If the recovery of weapon was found to be doubtful, fabricated or otherwise unreliable, the report of firearm expert, even if positive, could be disregarded by the Court as it failed to connect the weapon genuinely to the accused or the crime in a credible manner---Since recovery of crime weapon was disbelieved due to lack of independent corroboration, the positive report of the firearm expert lost its evidentiary value in connecting the petitioner to the crime--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioners beyond reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly. Hameed uz Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Ghulam Sarwar Nihung, Prosecutor General Islamabad along with Asif Khan, Inspector and Ashfaq, S.I. for the State. M. Faisal and Hamad (brothers of the deceased) for the deceased. Date of hearing: 5th June, 2025.