Summary: WRIT PETITION Held: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973---Article 199---Eligibility for Appointment---Assistant Professor of Law (BPS-19)---Higher Education Commission Criteria---Professional Experience---Teaching Experience--- Advocate---Rule 108-O, Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976---Suspension of License---Clean Hands Doctrine---Petitioner challenged rejection of candidature on ground of being short of experience---Petitioner claimed four years’ experience by combining legal practice and full-time teaching--- Record showed petitioner practiced as Advocate while simultaneously serving as full-time faculty member without seeking suspension of practicing certificate---Rule 108-O mandates suspension of license upon joining any other profession or Service Law; failure constitutes professional misconduct---Experience gained in violation of statutory rule cannot be counted towards eligibility---Person cannot derive benefit from his own wrong---Jurisdiction under Article 199 is discretionary and equitable; petitioner must approach Court with clean hands---Constitutional Law jurisdiction cannot be exercised to sanctify illegality---Scrutiny Committee and Appellate Committee rightly declared petitioner ineligible---No legal infirmity found in impugned orders--- Writ petition dismissed in limine.

Summary: WRIT PETITION Held: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973---Article 199---Gold Medal--University Regulations -Regulation 36, Admissions and Semester System Revised Regulations, 2011---Award of Gold Medal--CGPA--Rounding Off--Number of "A"" Grades---Cumulative Marks---Judicial Restraint in Academic Matters---Petitioner claimed entitlement to Gold Medal on basis of higher aggregate marks and marginally higher raw CGPA---University awarded Gold Medal to another student after rounding CGPA to two decimal places---Held

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)— ----S. 9(2)—Possession of narcotics—Sentencing—Applicability— Petitioner was convicted for possession of one kilogram of methamphetamine (ice) and sentenced under provincial law i.e. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019—FIR, however, was registered under Federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—Held, where offence falls within ambit of Federal law and trial was conducted by Court constituted under Federal Act, conviction and sentence must be awarded under provisions of Federal Act, 1997—Application of provincial law in such circumstances was erroneous—Conviction was altered from provincial statute to Federal statute accordingly and sentence was modified in accordance with section 9(2) of the Act of 1997. (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973— ----Art. 143—Repugnancy—Federal and Provincial legislation—Primacy of Federal law— Conflict existed between Federal Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and provincial Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019, both prescribing different punishments for same offence—Provincial law prescribed harsher punishment—Held, where provincial law is repugnant to Federal law in respect of matter within legislative competence of Parliament, Federal law shall prevail and provincial law shall be void to extent of repugnancy—Petitioner could only be sentenced under Federal law, which occupied the field—Application of provincial statute was unconstitutional and without lawful authority. (c) Criminal trial—Sentencing—Application of correct law—Duty of Court— ----Erroneous application of law—Correction— Trial Court and High Court applied provincial law despite FIR being registered under Federal law and trial conducted under Federal statute—Held, Courts are bound to sentence accused strictly in accordance with constitutionally valid and applicable law—Sentencing under incorrect statute amounts to legal error requiring correction—Ends of justice require punishment to be imposed under proper law. (d) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)— ----S. 9(2)—Sentence—Reduction— Petitioner was in possession of one kilogram of methamphetamine falling within scope of section 9(2) of Act of 1997—Held, appropriate sentence was rigorous imprisonment of five years with fine—Sentence awarded under provincial statute was excessive and liable to reduction in accordance with Federal law. Disposition: Criminal Petition No.46 of 2025 was dismissed, however conviction under section 11 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2019 was set aside; petitioner was convicted under section 9(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentence was reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100,000/- and in default whereof to further undergo two months simple imprisonment.

Summary: (a) Police Rules, 1934— ----R.13.6(2) & R.13.9—Promotion of constables as Head Constables—Outstanding merit course promotions—Vested rights—Effect of alleged repeal/omission— Police constables were promoted as Head Constables after completing requisite courses and their names were included in Promotion List, but later promotions were withdrawn and they were reverted/demoted under departmental orders on premise of “out of turn/shoulder promotions” pursuant to directions of IGP Sindh in light of Suo Motu Case No.03/2012—Service Tribunal upheld withdrawal without determining whether promotions were in fact covered by R.13.6(2) at the relevant time—Held, Service Tribunal was obligated to verify whether R.13.6(2) was in force when promotions were granted and, if omitted/repealed later, whether such omission could retrospectively disturb vested rights or closed transactions—Without examining service record, requisite courses/examinations, and applicability of rule at time of promotion, promotions could not mechanically be labeled as “out of turn/shoulder”—Impugned judgment suffered from non-application of mind and failure to decide essential factual/legal questions, hence could not be sustained. Cited Cases: Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456 Contempt proceedings against Chief Secretary Sindh and others 2013 SCMR 1752 (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973— ----Arts. 189 & 212—Binding effect of Supreme Court judgments—Role of Service Tribunals as fact-finding fora— Judgments of Supreme Court are binding under Art.189, including deprecation of out of turn/shoulder promotions—Held, notwithstanding binding principles, each service case must be decided on its own facts through independent and judicious appraisal—Service Tribunal, as appellate fact-finding forum constituted under Art.212, must examine service record and determine whether impugned action truly falls within ratio of binding precedents—Mechanical reliance on departmental stance, without factual verification of merit-based promotion and codal formalities, amounts to abdication of statutory duty. (c) Service Tribunal—Appellate jurisdiction—Duty to address factual and legal pleas— ----Scope under Service Tribunal law—Appeal as continuation of proceedings— Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to confirm, set aside, vary or modify departmental orders and must satisfy test of reasonableness and judiciousness—Held, Tribunal is ultimate judicial fact-finding forum for service matters; it must thoroughly examine original and appellate departmental orders and address all factual and legal pleas—Failure to examine crucial questions (whether promotions were merit-based under rules; whether rule was in vogue; whether promotions were improperly termed “out of turn”; and effect of alleged omission) vitiates adjudication—Matter required remand for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing and permitting production of relevant qualification/course documents. Cited Cases: Rao Muhammad Rashid and others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others 2024 SCMR 1864 = 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1349 Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore v. Ali Ahmad Khan 2025 SCP 2 = 2025 SCMR 289 = 2025 PLC (C.S.) 549 = 2025 SCLR 25 (d) Police service—Out of turn/shoulder promotions—Distinction from merit-based promotions under rules— ----Uniform application of law—Requirement of record-based determination— Out of turn/shoulder promotions stand condemned in law and may be withdrawn, however, before depriving an employee of promotion already granted, Tribunal/Court must determine on record whether promotion was actually out of turn/without merit or granted pursuant to codal requirements—Held, where employees assert promotion under R.13.6(2) on basis of course merit and completion of prescribed stages, Tribunal must scrutinize relevant service record and dates to determine applicability of precedents; otherwise reversion becomes unsustainable on legal plane. Disposition: Civil Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed; consolidated judgment dated 29.04.2025 of Sindh Service Tribunal was set aside; matter was remanded to Sindh Service Tribunal to decide service appeals afresh in accordance with law after providing ample opportunity of hearing to parties, preferably within three months; petitioners were permitted to file relevant documents to establish qualification and completion of requisite courses prior to promotion.

Summary: Powers of Appellate Court to reframe issues at appellate stage discussed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Powers of Appellate Court to reframe issues at appellate stage discussed. 56Family 64981/25 Harris Rasheed & 1 Other Vs Guardian Judge Lahore etc Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad 24-12- 2025 2025 LHC 8203

Summary: Summary pending