Summary: The petitioner was charged by the complainant (his brother) with firing upon his wife (the petitioner`s sister-in-law), Mst. Bushra Bibi, causing injury to her belly. The complainant also alleged that the petitioner hit him with the butt of a pistol when he tried to overpower him. The occurrence took place inside the complainant`s house, and there was no chance of misidentification or false implication. The court noted that the version of the complainant was supported by the medico-legal report of the injured, which opined that the injury was caused by a firearm. The police recovered blood, a .30-bore crime empty, and blood-stained garments from the spot. The FSL report confirmed that the crime empty was of 30-bore. The court held that sufficient material had been brought on record by the investigating agency to show the petitioner`s active participation in the offense, constituting a mischief under section 324 PPC. The punishment for this offense falls within the restrictive limb of section 497 Cr.P.C, making the petitioner not deserving of bail. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the observations made were tentative and would not prejudice the trial court`s independent mind. The trial court was directed to ensure early conclusion of the trial, preferably within four months, subject to cooperation from both defense and prosecution.

Summary: Case involving a dispute over the legacy of a deceased person, Madar Khan. The plaintiffs and defendants are both claiming rights to the property, and the court has allowed an amendment to the defendant`s written statement. The court has also remanded the case to the trial court for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of determining possession over the suit land and examining the evidence of both parties. The dispute is over the legacy of Madar Khan, a common predecessor-in- interest of both parties. The defendant`s application for amendment of their written statement was allowed by the court, as it would not change the nature or complexion of the suit. The trial court`s decision to reject the plaint was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision. The court noted that the trial court had shown unnecessary haste in entertaining the application for rejection of the plaint. The court emphasized the importance of examining the evidence of both parties to resolve the dispute. In light of the above, the court dismissed the writ petition and civil revision, upholding the appellate court`s judgment and remanding the case to the trial court for a fresh decision.

Summary: Court has delivered a judgment in two connected criminal appeals, Habib-ur-Rehman v/s State & others and Irfan Ullah & others v/s State & another. The appeals arise from a complaint filed by the respondents/complainants alleging that they were forcibly dispossessed from a property by the appellant/accused, Habib-ur-Rehman. The trial court acquitted the appellant/accused of the charge of criminal liability but directed him to restore possession of the disputed property to the respondents/complainants. The appellant/accused has appealed against the direction to restore possession, arguing that it is not valid since he was acquitted of the charge. The respondents/complainants have also appealed, seeking conviction and sentencing of the appellant/accused. The court observed that the trial court`s direction to restore possession is not valid since the appellant/accused was acquitted of the charge. The court noted that the respondents/complainants had failed to prove the offence of dispossession against the appellant/accused. The court held that an order for restoration of possession can only be made upon conviction of the accused under Section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. In light of the above, the court allowed the appeal of Habib-ur-Rehman partially, setting aside the direction to restore possession of the disputed property to the respondents/complainants. The court dismissed the appeal of Irfan Ullah & others against the acquittal of Habib-ur-Rehman. The respondents/complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance regarding the title/ownership dispute.

Summary: Writ Petition Held: (i) It appears from the record that the petitioner’s father was retired on medical ground vide order dated 17.10.2022. By then, a quota was reserved for children of employees who either die during service or retire on medical ground. It was under this quota that the petitioner was appointed as Postal Clerk on contract basis vide order dated 01.11.2024. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.02.2025 reveals that the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled in the light of judgment dated 18.01.2022 passed by the Islamabad High Court in WP No.1146/2022, wherein it was observed that the policy of offering employment under such a quota was whimsical, unconstitutional, and in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. (iii) We are also cognizant of the fact that the Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 18.10.2024 in Civil Petition No.3390 of 2021, has declared as discriminatory and ultra vires to Articles 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1), and 27 of the Constitution, all the rules, policies, memorandums, etc., which provide for the appointment, without open advertisement, competition, and merit, of children and/or family members of employees who retire or die during service. (iv) In the present case, the petitioner has unequivocally admitted in this petition that he was appointed under the son’s quota. However, at the time of his appointment on 01.11.2024, the said quota had already been declared unconstitutional and unlawful by both the Islamabad High Court and the Supreme Court. Therefore, the petitioner’s appointment was patently illegal, void ab initio, and coram non judice. (v) In view of the above legal position, the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. (Writ petition dismissed)

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Arts. 3, 4, 9, 10A, 14, 18 & 25 ---- Government employment in BPS-01 to BPS-04 ---- Appointment letters issued after completion of codal formalities ---- Non-payment of salaries without cancellation of appointments ---- Held, violative of fundamental rights Petitioners, appointed as Driver, Chowkidar, and Ward Boy in the Health Department, District Tharparkar, after due process including advertisement, interview, verification, and medical fitness, were denied salary payments despite joining duties. Their names were excluded from the salary processing list without cancellation of appointment letters or show cause notice. Held, non-payment of salaries in the absence of any lawful withdrawal of appointments constitutes a violation of fundamental rights under Arts. 3, 4, 9, 10A, 14, 18 and 25 of the Constitution. Appointment letters vested legal rights, and deprivation of salary without due process was unlawful. (b) Constitutional petition under Art. 199 ---- Scope ---- Disputed facts as a bar to writ jurisdiction ---- When not applicable ---- Duty of High Court to direct verification instead of non-suiting poor employees High Court dismissed petition on the ground of disputed facts, holding that petitioners' names were not in the final list of DRC-approved appointments. Supreme Court held that no factual controversy existed requiring elaborate inquiry, as appointment letters were admitted and not denied by department in comments. Held, when the right asserted is complete and supported by official documents, the constitutional jurisdiction is not ousted merely by raising belated factual objections. The High Court erred by not directing departmental verification and remedying administrative injustice. Dismissal of petition without such inquiry amounts to non-performance of constitutional duty. (c) Civil service ---- Recruitment irregularity ---- Appointments not revoked through lawful process ---- Employees cannot be penalized without inquiry ---- Departmental malfeasance must be addressed Held, if the appointment letters were issued without compliance of codal formalities, the Department was obligated to (i) conduct proper inquiry, (ii) identify responsible officials, and (iii) take appropriate action. Without such inquiry, recalling appointments or withholding salaries of low-paid employees constitutes administrative highhandedness. Poor appointees often become scapegoats, while departmental wrongdoers escape accountability. Held further, any withdrawal of appointments without show cause or hearing is void ab initio. (d) Administrative law ---- Direction for inquiry and verification ---- Supreme Court remand to Secretary Health Sindh ---- Time-bound compliance Supreme Court remanded matter to Secretary Health, Government of Sindh, directing that a hearing be granted to petitioners and the record examined. If the appointments were made on DRC/Selection Committee recommendation, petitioners must be allowed to resume service with prompt release of salaries. Exercise to be concluded within two months of receipt of judgment. Disposition: Civil Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; judgment of High Court set aside; matter remanded for verification and regularization of petitioners upon fulfillment of codal formalities.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ---- Arts. 4, 9, 10A, 18 & 25 --- Civil Servants Act, 1973 --- Fundamental Rule 17 --- Promotion to BPS-22 --- Supersession without reasons --- Denial of fair consideration --- Proforma promotion --- Doctrine of legitimate expectation --- Remand to High-Powered Selection Board. Petitioner, a BS-21 officer of the Police Service of Pakistan, challenged his repeated supersession for promotion to BS-22 without being afforded any reasons or fair opportunity. Despite having an unblemished service record with outstanding Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) from 2013 to 2018 and being senior to others who were promoted, the petitioner was overlooked by the High-Powered Selection Board (HPSB) in multiple meetings. No adverse material was found in the official record, yet the HPSB minutes included negative remarks not grounded in any documented performance review. The Supreme Court held that while promotion is not a vested right, the right to fair and lawful consideration for promotion is enforceable. Where a civil servant attains the age of superannuation without being justly considered for promotion, the case must be assessed under the framework of proforma promotion as envisaged in Fundamental Rule 17. The Court observed that delay or omission in considering eligible officers due to administrative lapses entitles them to proforma promotion with consequential benefits. The High Court’s dismissal was found to have overlooked the factual record and was influenced by unverified notings in HPSB proceedings. The judgment was set aside and the matter remanded to the HPSB to re-evaluate the petitioner’s case for proforma promotion in a fair, impartial, and timely manner, with specific instructions for decision within two months. Cited Cases: • Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb 2022 SCMR 2020 • Alam Chand v. Jamil Ahmad 2008 SCMR 980 • Abid Hussain Sherazi v. Secretary, M/O Industries & Production 2005 SCMR 1742 • Secretary Health Department, Punjab v. Dr. Abida Iqbal 2009 SCMR 61 • Federal Public Service Commission v. Shiraz Manzoor 2023 SCMR 2087 ----Disposition: Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; matter remanded to HPSB for fresh consideration within two months.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") based, inter alia, on the ground that the suit of the respondent was barred under Order II Rule 2, CPC was dismissed and the said finding was maintained by the Revisional Court below. This Court held that pattern of electing one remedy, abandoning it after adverse consequences, then shifting to the arbitration without proper recourse, and finally returning to file a third suit without compliance with the mandatory legal provisions is precisely what the doctrine of election, the bar contained in Order II Rule 2 CPC, and the scheme of the Arbitration Act, 1940 aim to prevent. If such litigation is allowed to proceed without scrutiny under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, it would set a dangerous precedent whereby a litigant could perpetually avoid finality by alternating between forums and/or remedies, without accountability. The law does not permit a party to keep the adversary entangled in an unending chain of litigation by withholding material facts, disowning procedural consequences, and reviving stale claims under the guise of a fresh suit. The respondent, having exhausted his remedies and failed to pursue them diligently, cannot now be allowed to relitigate the same dispute under a new garb.

Summary: Determination of qualifications for admission to institutions in any field is within the legislative competence of the government

Summary: a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961) —- S. 5 —- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (X of 1984), Art. 85 —- Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3) —- Dower —- Proof of Nikah Nama —- Evidentiary presumption —- Leave to appeal —- Execution of Nikah Nama not denied —- Non-production of marginal witnesses —- Effect —- Validity —- Where the relationship of husband and wife is admitted and execution of Nikah Nama is not specifically denied in the written statement, the plaintiff-wife’s failure to produce marginal witnesses of the Nikah Nama is not fatal to her claim. A Nikah Nama is a public document under S.5 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 and carries presumption of truth under Art. 85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Mere verbal denial of execution during oral testimony, without corroborating evidence, carries no legal weight. In the present case, the defendant did not dispute the Nikah Nama in his pleadings but attempted to deny it orally at trial without proof. Such denial was rightly disregarded by the trial court. Cited Cases: Rasool Bibi v. Waryam (1992 SCMR 1520) Jan Muhammad v. Salamat Bibi (2002 SCMR 1408) (b) Family Courts —- Suit for recovery of dower and maintenance —- Appellate Court and High Court —- Failure to determine crucial issue —- Jurisdiction not properly exercised —- Remand —- The trial court had framed an issue regarding maintenance allowance (Issue No.3), yet both the Appellate Court and the High Court failed to record any findings on this issue. Such omission constituted a failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in them under the law. The Supreme Court held that the non-determination of a framed issue by the subordinate forums warranted remand for proper adjudication. The matter was thus remanded to the High Court to decide the constitutional petition afresh in light of the observations made by the Supreme Court. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Impugned order of the High Court set aside. Case remanded to the Peshawar High Court for decision afresh within thirty working days after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.