Summary: Court has allowed five writ petitions filed by employees of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Technical Education & Vocational Training Authority (KP-TEVTA), directing the respondents to consider their cases for regularization in terms of the decisions taken by the Board of Directors in its 19th and 20th meetings. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis under Paragraph-12 of the KP-TEVTA Revised Regulations, 2020. The court held that denying regularization to the petitioners while extending the same benefit to other similarly placed employees is discriminatory and violative of Articles 4, 9, and 25 of the Constitution. The fixation and application of a cut-off date (31.12.2020) for regularization is arbitrary and lacks rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

Summary: i. Constitution of Pakistan, Article 9, 15- Liberty and Freedom of Movement- The Constitutional Law scheme of Pakistan, particularly under Articles 9 and 15, envisions a robust protection of liberty that cannot be curtailed by mere administrative fiat. Article 9 (Security of Person) has been interpreted expansively by the Superior Courts of Pakistan to include not just the safety of the body, but the freedom to live with dignity and the right to livelihood, both of which are inextricably linked to the freedom of movement. Article 15 specifically guarantees the right to remain in, enter, and move freely throughout Pakistan, subject only to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. This phrasing, “imposed by law” is the Constitutional Law lock against executive overreach; it demands that any restriction on movement must stem from a legislative enactment, not a departmental circular or an intelligence report. ii. Administrative law-Principles- It is a settled principle of administrative law that executive authority must be traceable to a statute. Reliance: Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. President of Pakistan (PLD 2022 SC 119) & Pakistan Muslim League (N) v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2007 SC 642). iii. Constitution of Pakistan, Article 10A- Right to be Informed-Prior notice- The most insidious and disturbing characteristic of the “Blacklist” and PNIL regimes, which impacts all categories of petitioners, is their inherent secrecy. Petitioners were frequently kept in the dark about their placement on these lists until they were arbitrarily offloaded at airports or denied essential consular Service Laws abroad. This clandestine operation directly contravenes Article 10-A of the Constitution, which elevates the Right to Fair Trial to a Constitutional Law imperative. This fundamental right implicitly mandates adherence to the principles of natural justice, including the right to notice, the right to an opportunity to be heard, and transparency in decision-making. A citizen cannot be expected to defend against an accusation or a restriction when its very existence is concealed. The prevailing practice of “silent displacement of responsibility”—where various governmental entities evade accountability by deflecting blame onto one another—creates an impenetrable “wall of silence” that effectively denies citizens any meaningful remedy. This Court unequivocally holds that no travel restriction can lawfully exist without either a prior or, in cases of extreme urgency, a contemporaneous show-cause notice, which must then be followed by a comprehensive reasoned order. iv. Constitution of Pakistan- Doctrine of Proportionality- where the State asserts legitimate grounds such as “security of Pakistan” under Section 8 of the Passport Act or “public interest” under the ECL Ordinance, any such action must rigorously satisfy the Constitutional Law test of Proportionality. This doctrine demands an objective assessment: whether the restriction imposed is excessive in relation to the legitimate object sought to be achieved. It is an unConstitutional Law overreach to subject a citizen to a travel ban for years merely due to a pending inquiry that has yet to culminate in a conviction. Similarly, denying a passport and effectively stripping an overseas Pakistani of their livelihood based on an unverified intelligence report is disproportionate and unjustifiable. Comparative jurisprudence, as already discussed, consistently establishes that travel bans must embody the “least restrictive measure” necessary to achieve a legitimate State interest. If the objective is merely to ensure a person’s attendance for an inquiry, less draconian alternatives, such as requiring a bond or surety, are readily available. Total immobilization and the arbitrary stripping of essential citizenship documents are extreme measures, justifiable only in the most severe and proven threats to national security

Summary: (a) In the context of execution or administrative law "Colourable Exercise of Powers"" occurs when a public authority uses a power ostensibly conferred by a statute but to achieve a collateral purpose that is not authorized by statute.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 69---Parliamentary proceedings---Judicial review---Scope of immunity---Article 69 protects proceedings in Parliament only against challenge on ground of procedural irregularity---Such protection does not extend to acts which violate substantive constitutional provisions, statutory law, or the doctrine of trichotomy of powers---Parliamentary privilege protects internal proceedings such as debate and voting, but unconstitutional or illegal actions remain amenable to judicial scrutiny. Cited Cases: • State v. Zia-ur-Rahman PLD 1973 SC 49 • Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2011 SC 1725 (b) Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007---- ----R. 244(B)---Special Committee of National Assembly---Nature and function---Special Committee may be appointed by Assembly through motion and may have such composition and functions as specified in motion---Such committee performs investigative, advisory and fact-finding functions for assisting House in deliberation---It may examine matters, gather information and submit report, but cannot enforce law, adjudicate disputes, issue binding legal determinations or assume role of executive/judicial authority. Cited Case: • Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 774 (c) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Trichotomy of powers---Special parliamentary committee---Limits of authority---Legislature enacts law, executive implements law, and judiciary interprets law---Special Committee constituted by Parliament cannot encroach upon executive functions relating to service administration or judicial functions relating to adjudication of rights---Directions issued by such Committee to executive departments for regularization, reinstatement, seniority, pay fixation or service benefits amounted to encroachment upon executive/judicial domains and were void. Cited Cases: • State v. Zia-ur-Rahman PLD 1973 SC 49 • Nazar Abbas Jaffri v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab 2006 SCMR 606 (d) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---- ----Ss. 2(c), 5, 9 & 24---Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3, 7 to 12---Appointment, promotion and transfer---Statutory modes---Appointments to civil posts can be made only through modes recognized by law: initial appointment, promotion or transfer---APT Rules provide structured merit-based mechanism for appointments, promotions and transfers---No authority outside statutory framework, including a parliamentary Special Committee, can bypass prescribed procedure or create a parallel mechanism for appointment/regularization. (e) Service law---- ----Daily-wage/contract/project employees---Regularization or reinstatement through Special Committee directions---Legality---Special Committee had no authority to direct departments to regularize or reinstate employees outside Civil Servants Act and APT Rules---Any such directions were ultra vires, lacked legal efficacy, and could not create enforceable service rights in favour of employees. (f) Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010---- ----Declaration of Act as ultra vires---Effect of Supreme Court judgments---Special Committee could not sit in appeal over Supreme Court decisions---Supreme Court had declared Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 ultra vires; review jurisdiction restored certain employees but maintained declaration of invalidity---Such judgments remained binding---Special Committee could not override or neutralize Supreme Court judgments through directions to departments. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Afzal and others v. Secretary Establishment Division and others PLD 2021 SC 1569 • Hadayat Ullah and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2022 SC 64 (g) Parliament---- ----Power to legislate distinguished from power of parliamentary committee---Effect---If Parliament intended to alter legal consequences flowing from Supreme Court judgments or create new category of affected employees, proper course was legislation enacted in accordance with Constitution---Special Committee, being advisory/fact-finding body, could not create substantive rights or compel executive action contrary to existing law. (h) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 69---Special Committee directions to executive departments---Whether protected parliamentary proceedings---Directions by Special Committee to heads of departments regarding terms and conditions of service were not mere procedural irregularities in parliamentary proceedings---Such directions breached constitutional and statutory framework and encroached upon executive/judicial functions---Therefore, they did not enjoy protection under Art.69(1). (i) Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972)---- ----S. 3(2)---Intra Court Appeal---Challenge to judgment declaring Special Committee directions void---Single Judge had allowed writ petitions and held recommendations/directions of Special Committee to be of no legal effect and void---Division Bench held that Single Judge correctly declared binding directions issued by Special Committee to be without lawful authority, while advisory role and submission of report to House remained protected and unaffected. (j) Judicial interpretation---- ----Effect of declaration by Court---Whether judgment operates only inter partes---Where Court interprets constitutional/statutory framework and declares an action void ab initio, such interpretation elucidates law as it always stood and does not create new law---Void action cannot be protected merely because some beneficiaries were not parties---Judgment did not amount to suo motu exercise of jurisdiction. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Khan and 2 others v. Haider and others PLD 2020 SC 233 • Malik Asad Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 161 • Mohsin Raza Gondal v. Sardar Mahmood and others 2025 SCMR 104 • Shahid Pervaiz v. Ejaz Ahmed and others 2017 SCMR 206 (k) Past and closed transactions---- ----Void ab initio actions---Protection unavailable---Actions taken pursuant to directions of Special Committee, if contrary to statutory law, could not be protected as past and closed transactions---No vested right can arise from an order passed without lawful authority or through misuse of legal authority. (l) Public employment---- ----Department otherwise competent to regularize/reinstate---Action taken pursuant to Special Committee’s direction---Effect---In some cases departments may have independent statutory competence to regularize or reinstate employees, but where such action was taken only pursuant to directions of Special Committee, exercise suffered from illegality---High Court declined to issue direction to employers to reconsider, observing that independent reconsideration, if otherwise legally permissible, remained within domain of competent departments. (m) Parliamentary committee---- ----Advisory report to House---Valid exercise---Binding directions to departments---Invalid exercise---Proceedings of Special Committee to extent of examining cases and submitting advisory report to House were within constitutional and legal framework---However, directions issued to executive functionaries regarding regularization, reinstatement, seniority, pay fixation or other service matters were without lawful authority and jurisdiction. (n) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 10-A---Argument of violation---Effect---Appellants contended that impugned judgment violated right to fair trial and was omnibus in nature---High Court held that judgment merely clarified constitutional and legal limits of Special Committee’s authority and did not amount to suo motu exercise or denial of fair process. Disposition: All Intra Court Appeals, including I.C.A. No.388 of 2023 and connected appeals, were dismissed. Proceedings of the Special Committee were held valid only to the extent of advisory role and submission of report to the House. Directions issued by the Special Committee to executive departments regarding regularization, reinstatement, seniority, pay fixation and other service matters were held void, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending