Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Civil Servants Act, 1973 – S. 2(1)(b); Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 4, 25, 27, 34 & 35 – Status of Civil Servant – Female Government Officer’s Right to Change Domicile Respondent, a female civil servant originally appointed under KPK domicile, changed her domicile to Balochistan post-marriage and applied for direct recruitment to a post under Balochistan quota—Held, respondent remained a “civil servant” within the meaning of S. 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and was rightly subject to recruitment regulations applicable to civil servants—Mere success in competitive exam does not confer a vested right of appointment—FPSC acted within administrative capacity; locus standi to file appeal was upheld—Change of domicile after marriage is not automatic but a matter of legal choice, and constitutionally protected where permitted under policy. (b) Civil Service Regulations, Vol I – R. 310-A; Office Memoranda (O.M.) 1971 & 1975 – Change of Domicile During Service – Female Officer’s One-Time Right Held, under O.M. 1971, domicile declared at entry into service is frozen and immutable during service tenure to preserve provincial quotas and inter-federal equity—However, O.M. 1975 read with R. 310-A, CSR Vol. I, carves a gender-sensitive exception: married female civil servants may exercise a one-time option to adopt husband’s domicile for direct recruitment—Such change does not disrupt seniority or service structure if the recruitment involves a distinct post and fresh scale—Court affirmed the validity of respondent’s change of domicile under O.M. 1975 as a permissible and final legal exercise. (c) Interpretation of Service Law – “Direct Recruitment” vs. “Initial Recruitment” – Scope and Application Held, terms “direct recruitment” and “initial recruitment” are interchangeable in service jurisprudence—Both apply to appointments made otherwise than by promotion or transfer—Thus, in-service civil servants are eligible for “direct recruitment” to new posts if they meet criteria and obtain departmental NOC—O.M. 1975 applies equally to in-service female officers seeking fresh appointment on new posts, enabling one-time domicile adoption in line with spousal domicile. (d) Gender Equality – Article 25(3) of the Constitution – Women-Centric Constitutional Interpretation Court adopted purposive, gender-sensitive interpretation of O.M. 1975 in harmony with Art. 25(3), 34 and 35 of the Constitution—Held, law must be applied to recognize historical disadvantages faced by women—Affirmative action through lawful accommodation (e.g., permitting change of domicile for direct recruitment) is a constitutionally sanctioned tool to promote substantive gender equality—Respondent’s legal right to adopt her husband’s domicile for one-time use upheld as valid and non-discriminatory. (e) PMDC Regulations, 2018 – S. V(5), (6) & (9) – Validity of Experience Certificate – Jurisdiction of Certifying Authority Held, PMDC is the competent statutory authority to assess teaching experience in medical faculty appointments—PMDC’s unchallenged certification confirming respondent’s qualifying experience in BS-18 and BS-19 roles carries legal finality—Internal arrangements or terminology used by PIMS do not override PMDC’s certification—FPSC cannot disregard or override PMDC’s jurisdiction—Objections to experience certificate rejected as baseless. Disposition: Petition dismissed—Orders of FPSC dated 10.07.2024 and 02.10.2024 rejecting respondent’s candidature were set aside—FPSC directed to consider respondent for appointment to post of Associate Professor on Balochistan quota within 15 days—Court upheld respondent’s domicile change and experience as lawful. Cited Constitutional Provisions and Statutes: • Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Articles 4, 25(3), 27, 34, 35 • Civil Servants Act, 1973 – S. 2(1)(b) • Civil Service Regulations, Volume I – R. 310-A • Establishment Division O.M. Nos. F.8/5/75-WC (1975) & 1/14/71-TRV (1971) • Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations, 2018 • Citizenship Rules, 1952 Notable Cases and Authorities Cited: • Muhammad Mubeen us Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 • Dr. Rashid Anwar v. Federation of Pakistan 1996 PLC (C.S.) 1073 • District Education Officer v. Sonia Begum 2023 SCMR 217 • Waqar Zafar v. Mazhar Hussain Shah PLD 2018 SC 81 • Hadayat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 1691 • Mohsin Ali Hasani v. Government of Pakistan 1990 SCMR 1685 • Yaqub Ali Khan v. FPSC 2019 SCMR 413 • Lord Denning’s dissent, and international references including CEDAW Articles 2, 5, 15 & 16

Summary: Under Section 7(f)(ii) of PEEDA, where charge of absence from duty for a period of more than one year is proved, the penalty of compulsory retirement, or removal or dismissal from service shall be imposed. However, if the absence from duty is not more than one year, the Authority has option to impose any one or more penalties mentioned under section 4 of PEEDA, however, such discretion must be reasoned, supported by cogent justification and in accordance with principles of proportionality and administrative fairness.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S.10(1)(i)---Termination of service---Probation period---Scope---Services of probationers can be terminated without notice during initial or extended period of probation---Where no stigma of misconduct including inefficiency or corruption is attached, it is case of termination simpliciter and question of any prior show-cause notice does not arise. ������ Muhammad Siddiq Javaid Chaudhry v. The Government of West Pakistan PLD 1974 SC 393; Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi v. Government of the Punjab and others 2004 SCMR 44 and Syed Tathir Hussain Shirazi v. The Governor of the Punjab and others 1990 SCMR 1510 rel. (b) Punjab Public Service Commission Regulations, 2016--- ----Regln. 63---Recommendation, withdrawal of---Principle---Jurisdiction under Regln. 63 of Punjab Public Service Commission Regulation, 2016 has been conferred upon Punjab Public Service Commission to withdraw the recommendation made for appointment against any post proposed for appointment through the Commission. (c) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 10(1)(i)---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21---Punjab Public Service Commission Regulation, 2016, Regln. 63---Withdrawal of recommendation---Unfair means, use of---Termination of service---Locus poenitentiae, principle of---Applicability---Punjab Public Service Commission withdrew its recommendations in favour of respondents / candidates on the allegation of use of unfair means during examination---Authorities terminated services of respondents / candidates who were still on probation---Judge in Chambers of High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside the orders passed by authorities---Validity---Using of unfair means in examination shatters confidence of public in examination system---Piecemeal cancellation of examination process encourages the racket involved in such nefarious scam of cheating which remains unnoticed in the process either by maneuvering with the invigilators of the examination or otherwise---Instead of cancelling candidature of few candidates, entire recruitment through such process may be set aside---Respondents/candidates who opposed such withdrawal of recommendations had no vested right in the examination conducted by authorities and the Commission had jurisdiction under the principle of the locus poenitentiae as well as S. 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 to make decision to conduct test again---Such re-test would cause no prejudice to respondents / candidates because if they had confidence in their abilities and intellect, then in the next examination they would again be in a better position---If the examination was not re-conducted, those candidates who were involved in unfair means would be in advantageous position as compared to those students who had worked hard and burnt midnight oil while preparing for the examination---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the decision of the Commission and the authorities, as the same was not open to any exception---Punjab Public Service Commission withdrew recommendations of candidates in 12 different departments out of which new tests were taken in 09 departments and the matter was pending for 03 departments only due to pending litigation---Division Bench of High Court set aside the judgment passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court and restored the order passed by the Commission---Intra Court Appeal was allowed in circumstances. ������ Province of Punjab through Secretary, Finance Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others v. Atta Muhammad Zafar and others 2021 SCMR 1195; Abrar Hassan v. Government of Pakistan and another PLD 1976 SC 315; Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and others v. Muhammad Habib Wahab Al-Khairi and others 2000 SCMR 1046; Abdullah Jumani and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2024 SCMR 1258; Federal Government Employees Housing Authority through Director General, Islamabad v. Ednan Syed and others PLD 2025 SC 11; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan � v. Ashba Kamran � and others I.C.A. No.53628/2024; Suo Motu Action Regarding Eligibility of Chairman and Members of Sindh Public Service Commission and others 2017 SCMR 637; Rashid Ali Channa and others v. Muhammad Junaid Farooqui and others 2017 SCMR 1519; Hafsa Habib Qureshi and others � v. Amir Hamza and others PLD 2024 SC 780; Ali Sher Khan � v. District and Sessions Judge, Multan and others 2022 PLC (C.S.) 492; Mst. Saba � v. The Province of Sindh through Secretary and 2 others 2020 PLC (C.S.) 113 and Rida Fatima � v. Pakistan Medical Commission and others PLD 2022 Lah. 197 rel. ������ Rana Shamshad Khan, Additional Advocate General, along with Tahir Mehmood, Law Officer, PPSC, Ali Niaz, Law Officer, PPSC and Mian Muhammad Iqbal, Director (Legal), PPSC for Appellants. ������ Abid Hussain Saqi, Mian Bilal Bashir, Bilal Hasan Minto, Barrister Muhammad Saram Israr, Moeen Yousaf and Syed Hussain Raza for Respondents in Intra Court Appeals. ������ Hafiz Tariq Nasim, Jawad Tariq Nasim, Usman Shafiq for Petitioners (in W.P.No.29811/2021). ������ Barrister Taha Shaukat and Barrister Salman Khalid for Petitioners (in W.P.No.28399/2021). ������ Saifullah Maan for Petitioners (in W.P.No.28711/2021). ������ Sohaib Rumi for Petitioners (in W.P.No.16781/2025). ������ Dates of hearing: 13th and 20th May, 2025. ������ CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.--- Through this single judgment, we intend to decide the titled Intra Court Appeal [No.13336/2022] as well as the connected appeals/writ petitions mentioned in Appendix annexed with this judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324 & 34---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, cancellation of---Complainant and victim not provided opportunity of being heard---Effect---Trial Court granted bail to the respondent-accused---Victim moved application for the cancellation of bail asserting that she was not even arrayed as a respondent to the bail petition and bail was allowed to the respondent without issuing her any notice or granting her an opportunity of being heard---Similarly, the complainant also filed petition, seeking the cancellation of the bail on merits, as he did not deny the issuance of notice to him---Held: Person accused of non-bailable offence, referred to in subsection (1) of S.497, Cr.P.C, shall not be released on bail unless the prosecution has been given prior notice---Said provision does not provide any way for the Court seized of the matter to dispense with the mandatory requirement of issuing notice in cases involving any relationship between the victims---Issuance of a notice to the State and the victim is mandatory before a person accused of non-bailable offence is released on bail---In the instant case, the respondent did not even make the victim a respondent in the very bail petition, let alone issued or served notice on her or provided an opportunity of being heard by the Court granting bail---Consequently, the bail granting order appeared to be against the express provisions of law---S imilarly, in the second bail petition submitted by the respondent, the victim was, though made a respondent, however, said petitioner was not issued any notice---Perusal of order sheets further revealed that there was no order directing the issuance of notice to the victim---Fact remained that no notice was served upon the victim---Therefore, it was quite obvious that in this case, too, the bail was granted without issuing notice to the victim---Hence, in this case, the bail granting order was also found to be against the express provisions of law and the principles laid down for the purpose---Petition for cancellation of bail was allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Ashraf v. Duarriyaman and another PLD 1993 Pesh. 151; Mst. Rambail Bibi v. Mir Alam and another PLD 1997 Pesh. 173; Muhammad Shafiq v. Muhammad Mir Khan 2004 PCr.LJ 968 and Fazalur Rehman v. Khalid and 2 others 2009 YLR 1818 ref. Muhammad Ashraf v. Duarriyaman and another PLD 1993 Pesh. 151; Mst. Rambail Bibi v. Mir Alam and another PLD 1997 Pesh. 173; Muhammad Shafiq v. Muhammad Mir Khan 2004 PCr.LJ 968 and Fazalur Rehman v. Khalid and 2 others 2009 YLR 1818 rel. Anwar-ul-Haq for Petitioner. Imran Khan Dhirma Khel for Respondent. Najib Ullah, A.A.G for the State. Date of hearing: 16th January, 2025.

Summary: Intra Court Appeal --- Appointment on the recommendation of PPSC---Proven use of Malpractice, unfair means in the test, interview in inquiry conducted by Anti Corruption Establishment. --- PPSC withdrew its recommendation for appointment of alleged successful candidate on the said post--- On said recommendations concerned Department terminated their newly appointed employee during probation without any stigma--- As per the Regulation 26 and 63 of Regulations-2016, the Commission is competent to withdraw its earlier recommendations sent to the concerned department if a person has been found deficient in any conditionality regarding his / her eligibility as a candidate and if any error or omission in result or merit is found, even after dispatch of recommendation to the concerned department.--- The appointing authority has jurisdiction to terminate its newly appointed employee without assigning any reason or serving any show cause notice during the period of probation. --- Public Service Commission and Government were obliged to ensure complete transparency in the process of selection / appointment of civil servants and if an incompetent or the corrupt persons enter into the civil service at the unwarranted ouster of the eligible and competent candidate from public post / job opportunities such appointments which disregard the merit, undoubtedly perpetuate bad governance and would drained the public exchequer and such appointments also thwart the credibility of the Commission. High Court has no suo moto jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter---- Intra Court Appeals allowed. Writ petition of the respondent stood dismissed.

Summary: Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging therein the amendment in Rule 66 of the Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002 and fixation of enhanced rate of Royalty--- Section 2 of the Regulation of Mines and Oilfields and Mineral Development (Government Control) Act of 1948 empowers the Government to make Rules--- Rule 66(1)(2) of Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002 fixation of Rate of Royalty--- The Government has jurisdiction under Mineral Development (Government Control) Act, 1948 to amend the Punjab Mining Concessions Rules, 2002 and to fix or enhance the amount of royalty on Limestone & Argillaceous Clay. The Provincial Government is also empowered to frame Rules, describing the conditions for Mining Lease and royalties as well as to fix or enhance rate of royalty which (royalty) is not legally considered as a ?tax'. Further as a policy matter the fixing, modifying or enhancing the rate of royalty there is no need to hear the petitioners-companies and the same does not offend the principle of audi alteram partem. --- Writ Petitions dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending