Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 212(1)–(3), 10A & 37; Service Tribunals Act, 1973 ----S. 4(1) & (2)---Service matters—Maintainability of writ against order of de-novo inquiry—Scope of Art. 212 vis-à-vis S.4, STA---Held, that an order directing de-novo inquiry is not a “final order” affecting terms and conditions within the contemplation of S.4, STA; no statutory appeal/remedy lies before the Federal Service Tribunal against such interlocutory direction—Where no adequate/expeditious remedy exists, a writ petition before the High Court is maintainable to examine legality of the de-novo order on limited, jurisdictional grounds (e.g., mala fides, coram non judice, abuse of process, violation of law/rules), without embarking upon disputed facts—High Court erred in declining to decide the vires of the de-novo order merely due to perceived precedential conflict; matter remanded to decide the writ on merits within time. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Yar Buttar v. BOG, OPF (1999 SCMR 819) • Fida Hussain v. Chief Secretary KP (2023 SCMR 1109). (b) Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977 ----r. 2(a), r. 4; E&D Rules, 1973 ----r. 5(iv), r. 6-A (repealed); Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 2020 ----rr. 11, 16---Appellate structure and competence—Whether appeal lies to President against de-novo inquiry ordered after “exoneration” by Authorized Officer—Held, that r.4 of the 1977 Rules confines appeal to orders altering conditions of service or imposing/affecting penalties; a direction for de-novo inquiry is not such an order and is therefore not appealable to the President—Authorized Officer assesses proof of charge and makes recommendations; Authority may, in revisional space provided by E&D regime, order de-novo inquiry for recorded reasons, but such order remains interlocutory and open to judicial review on the limited grounds noted above. Cited Cases: • Federation v. Shafqat-ur-Rehman Ranjha (2021 SCMR 153) (distinguished). (c) Interpretation—Precedent—Conflicting co-ordinate Bench decisions—Per incuriam and sub-silentio---Where two three-Member Benches conflict, earlier view binds unless a larger Bench holds otherwise; a later judgment rendered without noticing the earlier binding dictum is per incuriam and does not carry precedential weight—Accordingly, Muhammad Yar Buttar (1999 SCMR 819) prevails over Shafqat-ur-Rehman Ranjha (2021 SCMR 153) to the extent the latter suggests an appeal to the President against a de-novo inquiry order—Courts should refer conflicts to larger Benches to preserve stare decisis and judicial discipline. Cited Authorities: • Salmond, Jurisprudence (on sub-silentio/per incuriam) • Don Basco High School v. A.D., EOBI (PLD 1989 SC 128) (ejusdem generis/“including”). (d) Constitutional and administrative law—Right to fair trial/due process—Art. 10A—Ordering de-novo inquiry—Standards for interference---Competent authority is not bound by inquiry recommendations, yet any de-novo direction must be supported by reasons and conform to the governing rules; High Court may quash such order where shown, on the face of the record, to be without jurisdiction, mala fide, coram non judice, abusive of process or in derogation of due process. Cited Cases: • Khalid Mehmood Wattoo v. Govt. of Punjab (1998 SCMR 2280) • Peer Muhammad v. Govt. of Balochistan (2007 SCMR 54) • Syed Arshad Ali v. PTCL (2008 SCMR 314). Disposition: Petitions converted into civil appeals and disposed of with declarations: (i) order of de-novo inquiry is not a final order under S.4, STA; writ is maintainable on limited grounds—impugned view on maintainability set aside; case remanded to Islamabad High Court to decide W.P. No. 2755/2023 on merits within three months; (ii) Service Appeal No. 32(K)CS/2025 regarding minor penalty to remain pending; if the de-novo order falls, its superstructure collapses (maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus); if upheld, the FST shall decide the appeal on its own merits.

Summary: (a) Civil service- -Promotion-Vacancies arising in 2015-Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) delayed for two years by department due to stay orders-Civil servants’ right to be considered for promotion from the date of vacancy-Scope-The case of the petitioners, who were then Sub-Inspectors, was that the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Inspector (BPS-16) should have been considered from August, 2015 when 25 vacancies to the post of ‘inspector’ occurred-Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was delayed till 2017 due to stay orders-Upon vacation of stay orders petitioners were promoted to the post of inspectors-It was the case of the petitioners that they should have been considered for promotion w.e.f. August 2015-Held: The delay in the present case could not be regarded as justified-It was occasioned by litigation arising out of irregularities in the seniority list prepared by the department itself, which litigation was ultimately decided against the department-The stay orders, therefore, were a direct consequence of the department’s own flawed exercise and not of any conduct attributable to the petitioners-In the present case, the petitioners were blameless, and the delay, spanning over two years, was excessive by any standard of reasonableness-To accept the department’s argument would mean that even if such litigation dragged on for a decade or more, eligible officers would be deprived of promotion until the very end of their careers, thereby reducing the constitutional guarantee of fair consideration to a mere formality-Such an outcome could not be countenanced-The fair and lawful course, therefore, was to reckon the petitioners’ promotion from the date the vacancies first arose in August 2015, notwithstanding the intervening delay-Impugned judgment passed by the service tribunal was set aside-Present petitions were converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances. (b) Civil service- -Promotion-Right to be considered for promotion-Scope-A civil servant’s claim to promotion crystallizes the moment a vacancy within their quota arises, provided they meet the prescribed eligibility criteria- -At that stage, a corresponding duty is cast upon the competent authority to consider the officer’s case fairly and in good time-Administrative indecision, internal disputes, or managerial laxity cannot be pleaded as excuses to defer the process once a substantive vacancy exists-The failure to act amounts to arbitrariness and undermines the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which demands that civil servants be treated in accordance with established norms of fairness and predictability. (c) Civil service- -Vacant posts-Administration to fill vacant posts, duty of-The settled principle of public administration is that every sanctioned post exists to serve a functional need of the State, and must be filled within a reasonable time after falling vacant-Unless a post has been lawfully abolished, frozen pursuant to a demonstrable policy of fiscal constraint, or withheld due to overriding and transparent public exigencies, the administration is bound to proceed with filling it-Vacancies left un addressed foster ad-hocism, informal delegation, and opacity, which in turn opens the door to nepotism and favoritism-When a vacancy arises it must be filled without unjustified delay, for timely consideration is an essential incident of service and an element of fair treatment under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. (d) Civil service- -Vacant posts, non-filling of-Delay in constituting Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) causing delay in promotion-Doctrine of legitimate expectation-Applicability-To describe the delay in promoting the employees as-justified-would, in effect, permit the administration to take advantage of its own wrong and visit innocent officers with the adverse consequences of disputes in which they had no role-This would be wholly inequitable and inconsistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which entitles civil servants to be considered for promotion as soon as vacancies arise. Petitioners in Person (in all cases).

Summary: (a) Civil service--- ----Promotion---Vacancies arising in 2015---Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) delayed for two years by department due to stay orders---Civil servants’ right to be considered for promotion from the date of vacancy---Scope---The case of the petitioners, who were then Sub-Inspectors, was that the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Inspector (BPS-16) should have been considered from August, 2015 when 25 vacancies to the post of ‘inspector’ occurred--- Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was delayed till 2017 due to stay orders---Upon vacation of stay orders petitioners were promoted to the post of inspectors---It was the case of the petitioners that they should have been considered for promotion w.e.f. August 2015---Held: The delay in the present case could not be regarded as justified---It was occasioned by litigation arising out of irregularities in the seniority list prepared by the department itself, which litigation was ultimately decided against the department---The stay orders, therefore, were a direct consequence of the department’s own flawed exercise and not of any conduct attributable to the petitioners---In the present case, the petitioners were blameless, and the delay, spanning over two years, was excessive by any standard of reasonableness---To accept the department’s argument would mean that even if such litigation dragged on for a decade or more, eligible officers would be deprived of promotion until the very end of their careers, thereby reducing the constitutional guarantee of fair consideration to a mere formality---Such an outcome could not be countenanced---The fair and lawful course, therefore, was to reckon the petitioners’ promotion from the date the vacancies first arose in August 2015, notwithstanding the intervening delay---Impugned judgment passed by the service tribunal was set aside---Present petitions were converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances. (b) Civil service--- ----Promotion---Right to be considered for promotion---Scope---A civil servant’s claim to promotion crystallizes the moment a vacancy within their quota arises, provided they meet the prescribed eligibility criteria-- -At that stage, a corresponding duty is cast upon the competent authority to consider the officer’s case fairly and in good time---Administrative indecision, internal disputes, or managerial laxity cannot be pleaded as excuses to defer the process once a substantive vacancy exists---The failure to act amounts to arbitrariness and undermines the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which demands that civil servants be treated in accordance with established norms of fairness and predictability. (c) Civil service--- ----Vacant posts---Administration to fill vacant posts, duty of---The settled principle of public administration is that every sanctioned post exists to serve a functional need of the State, and must be filled within a reasonable time after falling vacant---Unless a post has been lawfully abolished, frozen pursuant to a demonstrable policy of fiscal constraint, or withheld due to overriding and transparent public exigencies, the administration is bound to proceed with filling it---Vacancies left un addressed foster ad-hocism, informal delegation, and opacity, which in turn opens the door to nepotism and favoritism---When a vacancy arises it must be filled without unjustified delay, for timely consideration is an essential incident of service and an element of fair treatment under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. (d) Civil service--- ----Vacant posts, non-filling of---Delay in constituting Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) causing delay in promotion---Doctrine of legitimate expectation---Applicability---To describe the delay in promoting the employees as “justified” would, in effect, permit the administration to take advantage of its own wrong and visit innocent officers with the adverse consequences of disputes in which they had no role---This would be wholly inequitable and inconsistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which entitles civil servants to be considered for promotion as soon as vacancies arise. Petitioners in Person (in all cases). Munawwar Iqbal Duggal, Addl, A.G.P. along with Jair Nasrani, DD HR, FIA along with Sajjad Hussain, Deputy Director (Law), FIA for the Respondents (in call cases). Date of hearing: 30th September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Civil service--- ----Promotion---Vacancies arising in 2015---Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) delayed for two years by department due to stay orders---Civil servants’ right to be considered for promotion from the date of vacancy---Scope---The case of the petitioners, who were then Sub-Inspectors, was that the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Inspector (BPS-16) should have been considered from August, 2015 when 25 vacancies to the post of ‘inspector’ occurred--- Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was delayed till 2017 due to stay orders---Upon vacation of stay orders petitioners were promoted to the post of inspectors---It was the case of the petitioners that they should have been considered for promotion w.e.f. August 2015---Held: The delay in the present case could not be regarded as justified---It was occasioned by litigation arising out of irregularities in the seniority list prepared by the department itself, which litigation was ultimately decided against the department---The stay orders, therefore, were a direct consequence of the department’s own flawed exercise and not of any conduct attributable to the petitioners---In the present case, the petitioners were blameless, and the delay, spanning over two years, was excessive by any standard of reasonableness---To accept the department’s argument would mean that even if such litigation dragged on for a decade or more, eligible officers would be deprived of promotion until the very end of their careers, thereby reducing the constitutional guarantee of fair consideration to a mere formality---Such an outcome could not be countenanced---The fair and lawful course, therefore, was to reckon the petitioners’ promotion from the date the vacancies first arose in August 2015, notwithstanding the intervening delay---Impugned judgment passed by the service tribunal was set aside---Present petitions were converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances. (b) Civil service--- ----Promotion---Right to be considered for promotion---Scope---A civil servant’s claim to promotion crystallizes the moment a vacancy within their quota arises, provided they meet the prescribed eligibility criteria-- -At that stage, a corresponding duty is cast upon the competent authority to consider the officer’s case fairly and in good time---Administrative indecision, internal disputes, or managerial laxity cannot be pleaded as excuses to defer the process once a substantive vacancy exists---The failure to act amounts to arbitrariness and undermines the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which demands that civil servants be treated in accordance with established norms of fairness and predictability. (c) Civil service--- ----Vacant posts---Administration to fill vacant posts, duty of---The settled principle of public administration is that every sanctioned post exists to serve a functional need of the State, and must be filled within a reasonable time after falling vacant---Unless a post has been lawfully abolished, frozen pursuant to a demonstrable policy of fiscal constraint, or withheld due to overriding and transparent public exigencies, the administration is bound to proceed with filling it---Vacancies left un addressed foster ad-hocism, informal delegation, and opacity, which in turn opens the door to nepotism and favoritism---When a vacancy arises it must be filled without unjustified delay, for timely consideration is an essential incident of service and an element of fair treatment under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. (d) Civil service--- ----Vacant posts, non-filling of---Delay in constituting Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) causing delay in promotion---Doctrine of legitimate expectation---Applicability---To describe the delay in promoting the employees as “justified” would, in effect, permit the administration to take advantage of its own wrong and visit innocent officers with the adverse consequences of disputes in which they had no role---This would be wholly inequitable and inconsistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which entitles civil servants to be considered for promotion as soon as vacancies arise. Petitioners in Person (in all cases). Munawwar Iqbal Duggal, Addl, A.G.P. along with Jair Nasrani, DD HR, FIA along with Sajjad Hussain, Deputy Director (Law), FIA for the Respondents (in call cases). Date of hearing: 30th September, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 26.01.2022 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals Nos. 1563(R)CS to 1566(R)CS/ 2019). (a) Civil service--- ----Promotion---Vacancies arising in 2015---Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) delayed for two years by department due to stay orders---Civil servants’ right to be considered for promotion from the date of vacancy---Scope---The case of the petitioners, who were then Sub-Inspectors, was that the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Inspector (BPS-16) should have been considered from August, 2015 when 25 vacancies to the post of ‘inspector’ occurred--- Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was delayed till 2017 due to stay orders---Upon vacation of stay orders petitioners were promoted to the post of inspectors---It was the case of the petitioners that they should have been considered for promotion w.e.f. August 2015---Held: The delay in the present case could not be regarded as justified---It was occasioned by litigation arising out of irregularities in the seniority list prepared by the department itself, which litigation was ultimately decided against the department---The stay orders, therefore, were a direct consequence of the department’s own flawed exercise and not of any conduct attributable to the petitioners---In the present case, the petitioners were blameless, and the delay, spanning over two years, was excessive by any standard of reasonableness---To accept the department’s argument would mean that even if such litigation dragged on for a decade or more, eligible officers would be deprived of promotion until the very end of their careers, thereby reducing the constitutional guarantee of fair consideration to a mere formality---Such an outcome could not be countenanced---The fair and lawful course, therefore, was to reckon the petitioners’ promotion from the date the vacancies first arose in August 2015, notwithstanding the intervening delay---Impugned judgment passed by the service tribunal was set aside---Present petitions were converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances. (b) Civil service--- ----Promotion---Right to be considered for promotion---Scope---A civil servant’s claim to promotion crystallizes the moment a vacancy within their quota arises, provided they meet the prescribed eligibility criteria-- -At that stage, a corresponding duty is cast upon the competent authority to consider the officer’s case fairly and in good time---Administrative indecision, internal disputes, or managerial laxity cannot be pleaded as excuses to defer the process once a substantive vacancy exists---The failure to act amounts to arbitrariness and undermines the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which demands that civil servants be treated in accordance with established norms of fairness and predictability. (c) Civil service--- ----Vacant posts---Administration to fill vacant posts, duty of---The settled principle of public administration is that every sanctioned post exists to serve a functional need of the State, and must be filled within a reasonable time after falling vacant---Unless a post has been lawfully abolished, frozen pursuant to a demonstrable policy of fiscal constraint, or withheld due to overriding and transparent public exigencies, the administration is bound to proceed with filling it---Vacancies left un addressed foster ad-hocism, informal delegation, and opacity, which in turn opens the door to nepotism and favoritism---When a vacancy arises it must be filled without unjustified delay, for timely consideration is an essential incident of service and an element of fair treatment under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution. (d) Civil service--- ----Vacant posts, non-filling of---Delay in constituting Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) causing delay in promotion---Doctrine of legitimate expectation---Applicability---To describe the delay in promoting the employees as “justified” would, in effect, permit the administration to take advantage of its own wrong and visit innocent officers with the adverse consequences of disputes in which they had no role---This would be wholly inequitable and inconsistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which entitles civil servants to be considered for promotion as soon as vacancies arise. Petitioners in Person (in all cases). Munawwar Iqbal Duggal, Addl, A.G.P. along with Jair Nasrani, DD HR, FIA along with Sajjad Hussain, Deputy Director (Law), FIA for the Respondents (in call cases). Date of hearing: 30th September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199----Civil service----Upgradation of posts for civil servants, matter of----Exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court----Principles----The question of upgradation of posts for civil servants is one that can be examined by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, however, while exercising such jurisdiction, certain principles of law must necessarily be kept in view:-(i.) The foremost consideration is whether upgradation constitutes a vested right of a civil servant, enforceable through judicial intervention, or whether it remains a concession extended by the Government depending upon exigencies of service and availability of resources; (ii.) The second question is whether upgradation can be granted in favor of an individual on a person-specific basis, or whether the policy of upgradation must apply uniformly to a class or cadre of employees to avoid arbitrariness and favoritism ; (iii.) The third aspect relates to the domain of policymaking itself. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199----Civil service----Upgradation of posts for civil servants---Scope----Credentials of the civil servant----Effect---- Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invoking of---- Argument of the petitioner was that her advanced qualifications and long service warranted upgradation---Validity---Upgradation of posts, being a matter intrinsically linked to administrative structure, financial implications and service requirements, ordinarily falls within the exclusive competence of the Government---Therefore, the role of the Court is not to substitute its wisdom for that of the executive, but only to examine whether such policy decisions are tainted with mala fides, arbitrariness, or discriminatory treatment in violation of constitutional guarantees----While the petitioner’s credentials (advanced qualifications and long service) were commendable, they did not in themselves justify a judicial directive for post-reclassification---The authority to restructure posts lies squarely with the executive branch, and Courts are reluctant to intrude upon such policy matters absent a showing of clear illegality, arbitrariness, or unconstitutional discrimination---Petitioner failed to establish that the denial of her request was arbitrary or discriminatory---Constitutional petition was dismissed. (c) Civil service---- ----Upgradation and promotion---Distinction---Promotion or upgradation is not a vested right of any civil servant, rather it is a policy tool exercised by the Government to address service exigencies, restructure institutions, or alleviate stagnation in posts lacking promotional avenues---Distinction between promotion and upgradation was that “promotion” is a merit and seniority-based advancement, and “upgradation” is a policy-driven adjustment of posts for broad and systemic reasons---Upgradation is not to be conflated with promotion; it is a mechanism employed to address structural imbalances and cannot be claimed as an individual entitlement. Muhammad Amjad v. Director General, Quetta Development Authority and others 2022 SCMR 797 ref. (d) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 4, 24 & 199---Civil service---Upgradation of posts for civil servants---Equality with comparators asserted by civil servant (petitioner)---Equal protection---Scope---Record showed that the petitioner had already benefited from a time-scale upgradation policy, which was designed to address the precise concern of stagnation---Granting the petitioner further individualized relief would amount to an enrichment beyond the policy's intent, creating preferential treatment rather than correcting an inequality---Thus, Petitioner's reliance on alleged comparators did not suffice----Constitutional equal protection was implicated only where similarly situated individuals are treated differently without any rational basis---In the present case, the determination of Committee on Upgradation that the petitioner’ post had already been benefited and was thus ineligible for further upgradation, constituted a rational and policy-based justification for the decision----Thus, the Petitioner had not demonstrated any vested right to further upgradation---Constitutional petition was dismissed. G. Shabbir Akbar for Petitioner. Raja Zamir Uddin Ahmed, A.A.G. for Respondent. Arshad Riaz, Superintendent Pakistan Post. M. Tariq Afzal, Admn. Officer, Pakistan Postal Office. Date of hearing: 9th September, 2025.

Summary: Constitution of the Search Committee Act (II of 2022) --- ----Ss.3(2) & 14(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Appointment of Chairmen of Educational Boards---Challenge to the recruitment process---Shortlisting of candidates through Search Committee---Alleged lack of transparency and deviation from statutory framework---Eligibility criteria---No recruitment can be done on criteria not mentioned in the advertisement, plea of --- Legality---Modification in advertisement---Whether substantial departure affecting fairness of process?---Briefly, the petitioners, being aspirants for appointment to the posts of Chairmen (BPS-20) of various Educational Boards challenged the shortlisting and recommendation of private respondents made through a recruitment process contending irregularities in the procedure adopted by the authorities; the controversy centered on the legality and validity of the recruitment process for appointment of Chairmen of Educational Boards and the scope of judicial review in such selection process---Held: More than hundred candidates were interviewed in nine batches and those who secured more than fifty marks were recommended by Search Committee for the Position of Chairmen in Educational / Technical Boards---This Tabulation showed that the private respondents had scored more marks than the petitioners and thus the private respondents were recommended for the said posts--- A proposal was made that whether candidates from the waiting list be selected in order to expedite the entire process, or fresh advertisement was given, and it had been decided that these two vacant posts were to be filled through re-advertisement in order to select best suitable candidates---This latest decision of respondents also nullified the objection of the petitioners’ side, that in such a competitive process no waiting list was required to be prepared---Constitution of the Search Committee Act, 2022 was promulgated with the sole object to make appointments in public sector Universities in a transparent manner---Since underlying object of the Boards in terms of the governing law was, inter alia, to regulate, develop and control Intermediate and Secondary Education; recognize and de-recognize educational institutions, grant certificates, diplomas to persons who had passed examinations; therefore, it was necessary to headhunt and select the best suitable candidates as Chairmen of the Board, who could ensure the accomplishment of the above statutory functions of the Universities and Board Department --- Hence, no illegality was committed by the Committee formed under the above Act of 2022, the composition whereof was mentioned under Subsection (2) of S.3, that included, the Chairman, Sindh Higher Education Commission--- Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances. M/s Shams and Brothers v. Government of Pakistan 2007 YLR 161 ref. S. Ali Ahmed Zaidi for Petitioners (in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-830 and D-1245 of 2025). Barrister Zeeshan Adhi, Additional Advocate General Sindh and Abdul Jalil Zubedi, Additional Advocate General Sindh along with Muhammad Sohail Imam, Legal Officer, Khadim Hussain, Law Officer, Syed Israr Hussain, Law Officer and Farhan Akhtar, Deputy Secretary [Admin], Universities and Boards Department [Respondent No. 2] for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-830 and D-1245 of 2025). Syed Saulat Hussain Rizvi and S.M. Mehdi Raza along with Dr. Syed Tariq Rafi, Chairman, Sindh HEC/Search for Respondent No. 3. Jaleel Ahmed Memon for Respondent No. 4 (in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-830 and D-1245 of 2025). Nasrullah Korai and Gulsher Mari for Respondent No. 5 (in Constitution Petition No. D-830 of 2025). Malik Naeem Iqbal and Malik Waseem Iqbal for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No. D-1304 of 2025). Ms. Shazia Hajrah, D.A.G along with Muhammad Ishaque, Assistant Attorney General. Dates of hearing: 27th March, 20th and 23rd May, 2025.

Summary: (a) Police Rules, 1934-Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456 and Contempt proceedings against Chief Secretary Sindh and others 2013 SCMR 1752 ref. (b) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)- -S. 5-Service Tribunal-Discretionary powers-Limitation and scope-Only limitation on the power of the Tribunal is that it must ensure and meet the acid test of reasonableness and judiciousness-Astuteness of discretion in the judicial power is meant to serve and advance the cause of justice in a judicious manner, in aid of justice, rather than perpetuating injustice. Rao Muhammad Rashid and others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others 2024 SCMR 1864 = 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1349 rel. (c) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)- -S.4-Service Tribunal-Appellate jurisdiction-Scope-Appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and in the appellate stage, the entire matter is reopened to determine whether the order or judgment appealed against is in accordance with the law or contains inherent defects that need to be rectified within the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal to attain finality-While exercising the appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of the Service Tribunal Acts, the first and foremost duty is to thoroughly examine all facts of the case and diligently address all factual and legal pleas raised by the parties. 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 rel. Petitioners in person.

Summary: (a) Police Rules, 1934- -Rr. 12.2(3) & 12.24-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A-Police service-Withdrawal of initial appointment-Reinstatement/re-appointment-Dispute qua fixation of inter-se seniority of Assistant Sub-Inspectors-Order of reckoning of seniority from the date of initial appointment subsequently withdrawn by the authority without issuing show cause notice-Principle of natural justice-Fair trial, violation of-Service appeals of the ASIs qua claim of reckoning of seniority from the date of initial appointment were allowed by the Sindh Service Tribunal (SST)-Validity-As per R.12.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 (Rules) the seniority in the case of upper subordinates is reckoned in the first instance from the date of first appointment; officers promoted from a lower rank are considered senior to persons appointed direct on the same date and the seniority of officers appointed direct on the same date is reckoned according to age, however, the seniority is finally settled by dates of confirmation, whereas the inter se seniority of several officers confirmed on the same date being that allotted to them on first appointment-While the seniority of lower subordinates is reckoned from dates of appointment, subject to the conditions of R.12.24 of the Rules and provided that a promoted officer shall rank senior to an officer appointed direct to the same rank on the same date-While determining the issue of seniority, predominance should have been given to the statutory provisionsthat are in vogue including the provisions set out for the alleviation of grievances vis-à-vis the determination of seniority-Expression "seniority", in the labour and service laws, exemplifies the precedence or preference in the standing of an employee over other similarly placed employees with the philosophy that if service of an employee is lengthier or on top of one another employee, then he is designated senior to the other-Since seniority bequeaths a valuable right and the whole future career and prospects of an employee time and again hinge on such seniority, therefore, its determination must be in accordance with relevant laws and rules-If the seniority list is to be revised, revisited or upset come what may, it is an onerous obligation of the competent authority/concerned department to confront the issue to all persons who are likely to be affected and deprived of their seniority but without following due process, it is sheer contravention of Article 10-A of the Constitution-Principles of natural justice requires that the delinquent should be afforded a fair opportunity to converge, explain, and contest the allegation against him before he is found guilty, condemned or any adversarial action is taken-All judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with a judicious and evenhanded approach to ensure justice according to the tenor of law and without any violation of the principles of natural justice-Predominant purpose of a show cause notice is to seek out a response explicating why a disciplinary or departmental action should not be taken-If any action is taken without due process of law or in violation of natural justice/fair trial, then the whole/entire infrastructure built thereupon deserves demolition and desolation-Issue before Supreme Court was not in a straight line correlated to the mere seniority and probation at the time of appointment or direct appointment of Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Asst. Sub-Inspectors but the case squarely was germane to the fixation of the seniority on the occasion of reinstatement and not on the basis of fresh appointment-Notification/Order was issued by the I.G.P. Sindh with the concurrence of the Chief Minister Sindh, factum of which was neither denied nor was any logical or sound justification placed before Supreme Court as to why in the case of reinstatement, the original seniority should not be reckoned and restored-No justification was found to interfere in the judgment of SST, thus, the Civil Appeals filed by the Government were dismissed, in circumstances. Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, Gujrat and another 2025 SCMR 92= 2025 PLC (C.S) 337; Government of Balochistan, through Secretary Energy Department, Quetta and another v. Muhammad Yasir 2025 SCMR 367= PLJ 2025 SC 113; Junaid Wazir v. Superintendent of Police 2024 SCMR 181; Federation of Pakistan v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603; Usman Ghani v. Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi 2022 SCMR 745; Capital Development Authority v. Shabir Hussain 2022 SCMR 627; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. Inspector General of Police 2023 SCMR 1135; Muhammad Yaseen v. Province of Sindh 2024 PLC(C.S.) 111; Government of Balochistan v. Ghulam Rasool 2024 SCMR 1155 and Inspector General of Police, Quetta v. Fida Muhammad 2022 SCMR 1583 rel. (b) Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975- -R. 11-Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S.26-Fixation of inter-se seniority-Total length of service as a determining factor-Validity-Seniority or inter-se seniority is in fact determined on the basis of total length of service and for judicious resolution of such question, the actual period of service must be kept in mind-Sindh Civil Servants Seniority Rules, 1975 give precedence to initial appointment determined on the date of regular appointment and if recruited in the same batch, then seniority is classified according to the date of regular appointment. (c) Words and phrases- -Expression-reinstatement-Meaning and scope stated.

Summary: (On appeal from the judgment dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi in Appeals Nos. 1102, 1104 to 1112 of 2021). (a) Police Rules, 1934--- ----Rr.13.6(2) & 13.9---Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), Ss.4 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 189---Out of turn/shoulder promotion---Reversion/demotion of Head Constables to Constables while misapplying judgment of Supreme Court---Decision of appeal by Service Tribunal without examination of service record---Legality---Duty of the Service Tribunal---Scope---Prior to declaring a promotion as out of turn or shoulder promotion, the Tribunal was obliged to examine the service record to ascertain whether such promotion was accorded without merit, fulfilling elementary codal formalities including training courses/examinations---Promotion cases of petitioners whether or not out of turn promotion could obviously be decided if the relevant service record of the petitioners was properly vetted by the Service Tribunal, together with the question of alleged repeal or omission of Rule 13.6(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 with its effective date vis-à-vis the date of alleged out of promotion granted to the petitioners---Judgment of Supreme Court has binding effect in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution, but each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and circumstances with an independent and judicious application of mind, rather than simply relying on the departmental version as gospel truth---Civil petitions were converted into appeals and allowed in circumstances. Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456 and Contempt proceedings against Chief Secretary Sindh and others 2013 SCMR 1752 ref. (b) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)--- ----S. 5---Service Tribunal---Discretionary powers---Limitation and scope---Only limitation on the power of the Tribunal is that it must ensure and meet the acid test of reasonableness and judiciousness---Astuteness of discretion in the judicial power is meant to serve and advance the cause of justice in a judicious manner, in aid of justice, rather than perpetuating injustice. Rao Muhammad Rashid and others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others 2024 SCMR 1864 = 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1349 rel. (c) Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)--- ----S.4---Service Tribunal---Appellate jurisdiction---Scope---Appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and in the appellate stage, the entire matter is reopened to determine whether the order or judgment appealed against is in accordance with the law or contains inherent defects that need to be rectified within the appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal to attain finality---While exercising the appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of the Service Tribunal Acts, the first and foremost duty is to thoroughly examine all facts of the case and diligently address all factual and legal pleas raised by the parties. 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 rel. Petitioners in person. Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi, Additional Advocate General, Mushtaq Abbasi Ali, AIG (Legal), Abdul Ghaffar Lakho, SP (Inv), Atta Muhammad Soomro, DSP(L), Muhammad Ghaffar, DSP (Legal) and Muhammad Amin, Inspector for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd September, 2025.