Summary: Issue:Whether the Election Tribunal's decision to order a fresh election based on the findings of irregularities in the voting process was justified.---Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Election Tribunal's decision for a fresh election, based on the analysis of voting patterns and NADRA's report which doubted the legitimacy of 7,555 votes.----Reasoning:The Court found significant discrepancies in voting patterns at 54 polling stations, where one of the two main contestants received an overwhelmingly high percentage of votes while the other received none. This unusual pattern, coupled with the high voter turnout at these stations compared to others, indicated potential manipulation. The NADRA report, which questioned the legitimacy of 7,555 votes (exceeding the winning margin), further supported the presence of illegal practices in the election process. The Court concluded that the election was not conducted fairly and was therefore void under Section 70(b) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1976.---Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the Election Tribunal's order for a fresh election in the constituency NA-267 Kachi-cum-Jhal Magsi.

Summary: Issue:Whether the Supreme Court's judgment dated August 11, 2011, allowing the civil appeals and effectively dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners, warrants a review.---Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions and the civil petition, affirming its earlier judgment.---Reasoning:The Supreme Court observed that the employees of PTCL, transferred from the Civil Service to the Corporation and then to the Company, were governed by statutory terms and conditions of service. These terms were protected under specific sections of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996. The Court held that the violation of these statutory terms could be addressed through constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court also noted that the terms and conditions of the employees, being statutory in nature, could not be adversely altered by the Company. The Court distinguished the employees governed by statutory terms from those employed on a contractual basis, indicating that the latter category would not be entitled to seek redress under Article 199 of the Constitution.---Decision:The Supreme Court dismissed the civil review petitions and the civil petition, upholding its earlier judgment that allowed the civil appeals and dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioners.

Summary: Legal Issue:Whether Rule 13 of the 1982 Rules and Rule 17 of the 2015 Rules, which prevent a person from being represented by an advocate in disciplinary proceedings, violate the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 10-A.----Judgment:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the said Rules do not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights. The Court observed that disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal proceedings and are governed by a different set of principles, including a lighter burden of proof and the absence of a right to be represented by counsel, which is consistent with other service laws.----Reasoning:The Court noted that disciplinary proceedings under the Rules are akin to domestic inquiries where representation through counsel is not a constitutional requirement. The right to be represented by counsel, as provided under Article 10(1) of the Constitution, is specifically linked to cases of arrest and detention, which do not apply to disciplinary proceedings under the Rules. The Court found that the Rules are in line with the constitutional framework and the principles of natural justice, ensuring due process and fair trial within the context of disciplinary actions.

Summary: Background:The appellants, senior science teachers, challenged the promotion of respondents as Subject Specialists, alleging that the promotion was unjustified due to unrecognized academic degrees. The Service Tribunal dismissed their appeal, prompting this appeal before the Supreme Court.----Issues:Whether the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the appellants' appeal regarding the promotion of respondents.Whether the academic degrees of the appellants are recognized.Whether the Service Tribunal properly addressed the question of seniority and the validity of academic degrees.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Service Tribunal, directing the promotion matter to be processed through the Selection Board. The Court reasoned:The Service Tribunal appropriately directed the departmental authority to process the promotion matter, indicating that it did not conclusively determine seniority or the validity of academic degrees.The document submitted by the appellants did not constitute a seniority list, and the Tribunal correctly noted the absence of such documentation.The original academic degrees of the appellants, verified by the Higher Education Commission, were found to be valid.The Tribunal's direction to process the promotion matter through the Selection Board within a specified period was a suitable remedy given the circumstances.Since the Tribunal's judgment did not adversely affect the seniority position or question the validity of the appellants' degrees, the direction for processing the promotion matter was appropriate.----Citations/Precedents:Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, Rule 10-BPrinciple regarding the importance of a recognized seniority list in determining seniority positions.

Summary: Background:Raja Mumtaz Ahmed Rathore, the appellant, was appointed as Staff Officer B-18 on 17.03.1997 and later promoted to Reference and Research Officer. He claimed eligibility for promotion to Additional Secretary B-19 as of 22.09.2002, but others were promoted instead. Rathore successfully appealed to the Supreme Court, which recognized his qualification for promotion as of the said date. Following this, he was promoted retrospectively. When a Senior Additional Secretary B-20 position became available, Rathore filed a writ petition, asserting his eligibility based on the legislative rules, but the High Court dismissed it, claiming his applications to the Speaker had not been made.----Issues:Whether the High Court properly dismissed the appellant?s writ petition on the grounds that no application or representation was filed.Whether Rathore was entitled to be promoted to Senior Additional Secretary B-20 based on seniority and previous court rulings.Whether the appellant's claims regarding tampering with the receipt register and the delayed application process should affect the case outcome.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of Rathore's writ petition. The Court reasoned:The alleged applications to the Speaker were not proven to be submitted, and the matter involved disputed facts unsuitable for resolution in a writ petition.According to Section 12 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment, Terms, and Conditions) Act, 1976, and Section 21 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, no statutory provision recognized such representations for promotion disputes.The Supreme Court's previous judgment (07.04.2011) resolved only the promotion to Additional Secretary B-19, not the seniority or promotion to B-20.The appellant did not challenge the promotion of respondent No. 3 (Senior Additional Secretary B-20) within the prescribed timeframe, making his subsequent claims invalid.The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.----Citations/Precedents:Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment, Terms, and Conditions) Act, 1976Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976Supreme Court judgment dated 07.04.2011Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Section 44

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.