Summary: (1) Distinction between “supersession” and “deferment” (2) Rule 13-A of 1975 Rules for determination of inter-se seniority (3) Principle “Birds of a feather flock together” explained. --- (a) Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973----Ss.8 & 9---Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, Rr.9, 10, 11 & 13-A---Seniority of Mukhtiarkars (BPS-16)---Promotees, deferred promotees and direct recruits---Seniority was to be determined according to mode and date of regular appointment and relevant statutory rules---Civil servant possessed no vested right to a particular position in seniority list, but appointing authority was required to prepare and revise seniority according to law---Seniority on promotion ordinarily took effect from date of regular appointment, subject to protection of inter-se seniority of persons belonging to same promotion batch---Direct recruits were to reckon seniority from date of their regular appointment and according to merit assigned by selection authority. (b) Service law---Promotion---“Supersession” and “deferment”---Distinction---Supersession involved conscious assessment by competent selection forum that civil servant was not fit or suitable for promotion on a particular occasion, resulting in promotion of junior and ordinarily affecting inter-se seniority---Deferment was temporary postponement of consideration due to incomplete service record, missing training, pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings or other administrative impediment and did not amount to adverse determination on fitness or merit---Supersession and deferment carried distinct legal consequences and could not be used interchangeably---Deferred civil servant, upon subsequent promotion after removal of impediment, could retain seniority with original batch in accordance with governing rules. (c) Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975----R.13-A---Deferred civil servant---Subsequent promotion---Inter-se seniority with juniors---Civil servant not promoted on his turn because seniority was disputed, he was on deputation, training or leave, disciplinary proceedings were pending, or for a reason other than unfitness for promotion, was, upon subsequent promotion and subject to competent authority’s order, deemed for purposes of inter-se seniority in higher post to have been promoted in same batch as his juniors---Fifty-four Assistant Mukhtiarkars had not been meaningfully considered and superseded on merit but were deferred because departmental, criminal or anti-corruption proceedings were pending---Upon subsequent promotion, their inter-se seniority with batchmates promoted on 03.01.2011 was protected under R.13-A. (d) Service law---Deferment from promotion---Non-reservation of vacancies---Effect upon seniority---Argument that deferred candidates could not claim seniority with original batch because no posts had been reserved for them was not sustainable---Deferred candidates were temporarily kept out of consideration and available candidates could lawfully be promoted against existing posts without suspending entire promotion process---Requirement to reserve posts for every deferred candidate would create administrative stalemate and frustrate Departmental Promotion Committee proceedings---Mere exhaustion or non-availability of promotion quota at time of subsequent promotion did not by itself deprive deferred civil servants of inter-se seniority protected by R.13-A after removal of impediment and regular promotion. (e) Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973----S.8---Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, Rr.10 & 11---Initial appointees and promotees---Determination of inter-se seniority---Seniority of civil servant was ordinarily reckoned from date of regular appointment and ad hoc appointment could not be retrospectively regularized---Among direct recruits, earlier selection ranked senior to later selection and merit assigned by selection authority governed inter-se position---Among promotees, seniority in lower post governed their inter-se ranking---Rule 11 further required determination of relative seniority of promotees and direct recruits according to prescribed statutory criterion---Department was bound to reconcile seniority positions strictly under applicable rules. (f) Service law---Promotion quota---Earlier remand directions of Supreme Court---Compliance---Earlier judgment dated 19.01.2021 required department to follow fifty percent quota each for direct recruits and promotees, ensure promotion only against available post in relevant quota, prohibit cross-quota promotion, treat persons promoted without available posts as ad hoc promotees until regular appointment and determine seniority from date of regular appointment under relevant rules---Grant of inter-se seniority to genuinely deferred promotees under R.13-A did not, by itself, violate said directions---Deferred candidates had not been promoted cross-quota merely by being placed with their original batch for inter-se seniority. Previous Proceedings: • Civil Appeals Nos.489 to 491 of 2017 and connected petitions, Supreme Court of Pakistan, judgment dated 19.01.2021 (g) Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975----Rr.10 & 11---Promoted Mukhtiarkars vis-à-vis directly recruited Mukhtiarkars---Final seniority list dated 08.06.2021---Promotees, including deferred promotees accorded batch seniority, claimed promotion date of 03.01.2011, whereas direct recruits were regularly appointed on 31.10.2011---Service Tribunal correctly held that direct recruits’ seniority commenced from date of regular appointment, but did not clearly determine whether their placement above promotees regularly promoted from an earlier date was consistent with governing rules---Matter required limited administrative reconciliation and re-examination rather than wholesale disturbance of seniority already determined regarding deferred promotees. (h) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.212(3)---Service Tribunal judgment---Seniority dispute---Scope of interference---Tribunal’s conclusion applying R.13-A to protect inter-se seniority of deferred promotees with their original batch was maintained---Interference was required only to extent that relative ranking between regularly promoted Mukhtiarkars and directly recruited Mukhtiarkars had not been examined with clarity under Rr.10 and 11 of the 1975 Rules. Disposition---Civil petitions converted into appeals and partly allowed---Finding protecting inter-se seniority of deferred Mukhtiarkars with their original batch maintained---Matter remanded to Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Sindh, for limited re-examination of seniority ranking of promoted Mukhtiarkars from dates of promotion vis-à-vis directly recruited Mukhtiarkars from dates of appointment---Competent authority directed to hear stakeholders and, if any lapse, apparent error or violation of 1975 Rules was found, make necessary correction in Final Seniority List dated 08.06.2021 within two months. Faheemuddin Memon and others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others, C.P.L.A. Nos.914-K to 919-K of 2023, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard on 25.03.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.212(3)---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Departmental proceedings---Scope of interference by Federal Service Tribunal---Where inquiry had been conducted in accordance with law, adequate opportunity of defence had been afforded and findings were supported by material available on record, Tribunal could not arbitrarily interfere with penalty or substitute its own conclusions merely because another view of evidence was possible---Departmental proceedings were distinct from criminal proceedings and Tribunal was not to act as an appellate forum for fresh reassessment of evidence after requirements of due process had been satisfied. Cited Cases: • Director General, Directorate General of Training and Research (Inland Revenue), Lahore v. Ijaz Younas 2021 SCMR 710 • Saboor Khan v. Chairman WAPDA 2021 SCMR 667 (b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Departmental inquiry---Due process---Respondent was served with charge-sheet and statement of allegations, submitted written reply, participated throughout inquiry, was informed of rights available under Rules, was afforded opportunity to cross-examine departmental witnesses, received show-cause notice and was granted personal hearing before competent authority---No violation of any mandatory legal provision or denial of reasonable opportunity of defence was established---Inquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with law. (c) Evidence---Cross-examination---Departmental witnesses not challenged---Evidentiary effect---Where witness was not cross-examined on material portion of testimony, such statement ordinarily deserved acceptance as true unless displaced by reliable contrary evidence---Respondent was expressly afforded opportunity to cross-examine all departmental witnesses but consciously declined to avail it---Testimony concerning harassment, blackmail, indecent photographs, objectionable associations and immoral conduct therefore remained unrebutted and could legitimately be relied upon by Inquiry Committee. Cited Cases: • Mst. Nur Jehan Begum through Legal Representatives v. Syed Mujtaba Ali Naqvi 1991 SCMR 2300 • Sheraz Tufail v. The State 2007 SCMR 518 • Ishfaq Ahmed v. Mushtaq Ahmed and others PLD 2025 SC 582 (d) Departmental proceedings---Voluntary confession by delinquent employee---Evidentiary value---Respondent made detailed signed statement before Inquiry Committee after being informed of his rights, expressly declaring that it was made willingly and without pressure or duress---He admitted involvement in immoral and illicit activities and furnished particulars thereof---Confession was never retracted during inquiry nor was coercion, threat, inducement or mala fide alleged before competent authority---Respondent subsequently admitted misconduct during personal hearing and sought pardon---Such admissions constituted substantive evidence and independently supported conclusion that respondent had rendered himself unsuitable for retention in service. (e) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Departmental misconduct---Standard of proof---“Some evidence” rule---Findings of Inquiry Committee were supported by oral testimony of several witnesses, voluntary confession of respondent and subsequent admissions before competent authority---Such material satisfied requirement of “some evidence” necessary to sustain departmental findings---Findings could not be characterized as arbitrary, capricious, perverse or based on no evidence. (f) Departmental inquiry---Misconduct of immoral nature---Absence of documentary evidence---Effect---Tribunal erred in treating want of documentary evidence as fatal---Misconduct involving personal conduct, objectionable associations, harassment and immoral activities could be proved through oral testimony, admissions, surrounding circumstances and conduct of delinquent employee---Law did not require documentary proof of every allegation in disciplinary proceedings. (g) Civil service---Conduct before regularization and during service---Relevance---Tribunal attached undue significance to fact that some incidents related to period before respondent’s regular appointment---Inquiry record also contained material showing continuation of objectionable conduct during service---Earlier incidents, when forming part of continuing pattern of misconduct extending into service, could not be discarded merely because some conduct preceded regularization. (h) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.212(3)---Federal Service Tribunal---Reappraisal of departmental evidence---Jurisdictional limits---Tribunal failed to appreciate unrebutted witness testimony, voluntary confession and subsequent admissions and substituted its own assessment for conclusions of disciplinary authority---Such reassessment exceeded lawful limits of Tribunal’s jurisdiction where inquiry was fair and findings were supported by ample material. Disposition---Petition for leave to appeal converted into appeal and allowed---Judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed by Federal Service Tribunal set aside---Order dated 30.08.2021 imposing major penalty of dismissal from service, as maintained in departmental appeal on 14.10.2021, restored. Additional Director Civilian Personnel, Air Headquarters, Peshawar and others v. Muzafar Masih, Civil Petition No.5857 of 2024, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard on 21.05.2026 and announced on 19.06.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: (a) Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974----R.11-A---Deceased son/spouse quota---Accrued right to appointment---Effect of subsequent declaration of invalidity of rule---Respondents, being spouse/children of deceased Sindh civil servants, sought appointment under Rule 11-A---Province contended that in view of General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276), Rule 11-A having been struck down, no appointment could thereafter be made, particularly when no formal appointment letters had yet been issued---Held, relevant event for accrual of right was death of civil servant, and as soon as death occurred, one of children and/or spouse acquired right to be appointed in service under the deceased quota---Submission of application and issuance of appointment letter were merely administrative acts and did not determine creation of right---Since right had already accrued in favour of respondents before abolition of the rule, subsequent judgment striking down Rule 11-A did not defeat such accrued entitlement. (b) Judgment of Supreme Court---Prospective operation---Accrued and closed rights---Held, judgments of the Supreme Court ordinarily operate prospectively and not retrospectively---Subsequent invalidation of Rule 11-A could not divest beneficiaries of rights already accrued prior to such pronouncement---Supreme Court had also clarified in a later decision that judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276 did not wipe out accrued rights or disturb past and closed transactions---Therefore, respondents’ claims remained protected notwithstanding later declaration of invalidity of the enabling rule. Reliance was placed on Pir Bakhsh represented by his legal heirs v. Chairman Allotment Committee PLD 1987 SC 145 and Zahida Parveen v. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhawa and others (CPLA No.566-P/2024). (c) Constitution of Pakistan---Constitutional petition---Interference in appeal by Federal Constitutional Court---Held, Sindh High Court had rightly accepted writ petitions of respondents and directed Province to appoint them on deceased son/spouse quota, as no legal infirmity existed in its reasoning---Province’s objection that no right had culminated because appointment letters had not been issued was misconceived, since the substantive right had crystallized on death of employee and not on completion of administrative formalities---No case for interference was, therefore, made out. Petitions were dismissed, leave was refused, and appointments under deceased son/spouse quota were held protected on account of accrued rights arising prior to striking down of Rule 11-A.

Summary: (a) Punjab Emergency Service Act, 2006--- ----Ss. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 & 27---Punjab Emergency Service---Legal character after Punjab Emergency Service (Amendment) Act, 2021---Body corporate changed into independent administrative department of Government---Effect---Emergency Service was originally established as a body corporate with perpetual succession and power to sue and be sued, and was listed as an autonomous body under the Rules of Business---By virtue of 2021 Amendment, S.4(2) of the Act of 2006 was amended and Emergency Service was declared an independent administrative department of Government---Corresponding amendments in Rules of Business omitted Emergency Service from First and Second Schedules, with result that it was no longer shown as autonomous body under any secretariat---Held, that 2021 Amendment took away corporate entity status of Emergency Service and made it an independent statutory department of Government---However, said amendment did not alter its internal statutory framework for administration, management and regulation of its employees. (b) Punjab Emergency Service Act, 2006--- ----S. 21---Public servants---Employees of Punjab Emergency Service---Status---Effect of statutory declaration---Employees of Emergency Service were declared under S.21 of Act of 2006 to be public servants within meaning of S.21 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860---Such provision was not changed by 2021 Amendment---Held, that statutory declaration of employees as public servants recognizes public character of functions performed by them and ensures accountability under law, but does not convert them into civil servants---Employees of Emergency Service remained public servants and not civil servants. (c) Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974--- ----S. 2(b)---Civil servant and public servant---Distinction---Civil servant means person who is member of civil service of Province or holds civil post in connection with affairs of Province, subject to statutory exclusions---Public servant is a broader concept under S.21, P.P.C., covering persons performing public duties, exercising public authority or entrusted with functions connected with public administration---Held, that primary distinction is that civil servant’s terms and conditions of service are governed by relevant civil service law and rules framed thereunder, whereas public servant may perform public duties under statutory authority without being part of civil service framework---All civil servants may be public servants, but all public servants are not civil servants. Cited Case: • Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority v. Government of Sindh 2022 SCMR 595 (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 240 & 260---Service of Pakistan---Civil servant---Statutory bodies and instrumentalities of Government---Scope---Service of Pakistan includes any service, post or office in connection with affairs of Federation or Province and any other service declared by law to be service of Pakistan---Held, that expression “service of Pakistan” and expression “civil servant” are not synonymous---Civil servant is one whose appointment and terms and conditions are regulated under civil service legal framework, while public servant may serve through an instrumentality of Government created by statute to perform specialized public functions with operational autonomy---Mere performance of functions connected with affairs of Government does not by itself make employees civil servants. Cited Cases: • Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 244 • Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 (e) Punjab Emergency Service Act, 2006--- ----Punjab Emergency Service Leave, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2007---Punjab Emergency Service (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2022---Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974---Employees of Emergency Service---Terms and conditions governed by separate statutory framework---Effect---Emergency Service was established under Act of 2006 and employment of its employees was regulated by 2007 Rules and 2022 Regulations---Employees were not governed by Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 or rules framed thereunder---Held, that where appointment and terms and conditions of employees are governed by separate statutory framework and not by civil service law, such employees cannot be treated as civil servants---Employees of Emergency Service, therefore, did not fall within jurisdiction of Service Tribunal. (f) Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974--- ----Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Appeal by civil servant only---Employees of Punjab Emergency Service---Maintainability---Respondent, a rescue driver, challenged disciplinary action before Punjab Service Tribunal---Tribunal assumed jurisdiction on basis that after 2021 Amendment Emergency Service had become independent department of Government and its employees had become civil servants---Held, that Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 confers jurisdiction upon Tribunal in respect of civil servants and appeal is to be filed by a civil servant---Respondent, being employee of Emergency Service governed by separate statutory regime and declared public servant, was not a civil servant---Tribunal had no jurisdiction over matters relating to his terms and conditions of service. (g) Service law--- ----Jurisdiction---Foundational issue---Duty of Tribunal---Interim orders on jurisdiction---Merger into final judgment---Service Tribunal held that earlier interim orders on jurisdiction had attained finality because they were not challenged---Held, that finding was erroneous---Interim orders merged into final judgment where Tribunal again addressed issue of jurisdiction---Jurisdiction being foundational issue was required to be examined with care and circumspection before assuming authority over matter---In absence of jurisdiction, proceedings before Service Tribunal were without lawful basis. (h) Statutory bodies--- ----Employees of autonomous/statutory/corporate bodies---Government funding, statutory creation or administrative supervision---Effect on status of employees---Held, that mere fact that a body is created by statute, funded by Government, or subject to administrative supervision does not render its employees civil servants---Applicable test is whether employee holds a civil post and whether appointment and terms and conditions of service are governed by civil service legal framework---Employees of statutory bodies governed by their own service rules or regulations are not civil servants merely because their employer performs public functions. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 • Executive Council Allama Iqbal Open University v. M. Tufail Hashmi 2010 SCMR 1484 • Muhammad Naeem v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 SCMR 301 Disposition: Civil petition was converted into appeal and allowed. Order dated 07.06.2023 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal was set aside. It was held that employees of Punjab Emergency Service are not civil servants and Punjab Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction in matters relating to their terms and conditions of service. ---- "Civil servants are those whose appointment and service are regulated under the Civil Servants Act and its framework, or by express statutory declaration, whereas public servants broadly include persons performing public duties or exercising authority under law. Through the 2021 Amendment, the Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue 1122) ceased to be a corporate entity and became an independent administrative department of Government, operating outside the conventional Rules of Business framework, due to the specialized nature of its services. Therefore, employees of the Punjab Emergency Service (Rescue 1122) are governed by their own statutory framework, remain public servants and the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction."

Summary: (a) Punjab Emergency Service Act (III of 2006)---- ----Ss. 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21 & 27---Punjab Emergency Service---Legal character after Punjab Emergency Service (Amendment) Act, 2021---Independent administrative department of Government---Effect on statutory framework---Emergency Service was originally established as a body corporate with perpetual succession and power to sue and be sued---By virtue of 2021 Amendment, S.4(2) was amended and Emergency Service was described as an independent administrative department of Government---Supreme Court held that 2021 Amendment merely changed legal form of Emergency Service from body corporate to an independent statutory department of Government and did not alter its statutory framework for administration, management or regulation of employees---Emergency Service continued to operate under Act of 2006, 2007 Rules and 2022 Regulations with its own organizational and service structure---Employees remained public servants under S.21 of Act of 2006, which provision was not changed by 2021 Amendment---Change in legal status of institution did not by itself convert its employees into civil servants. (b) Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011---- ----Rules 2(b), 2(c) & 2(j)---Attached Department, Autonomous Body and Department---Punjab Emergency Service---Independent administrative department---Status under Rules of Business---Supreme Court observed that Rules of Business regulate allocation and transaction of business of Government of Punjab and provide for Attached Departments, Autonomous Bodies, Departments and Special Institutions---There was no concept in Rules of Business of an “independent administrative department of Government” placed under any existing secretariat---After 2021 Amendment, Emergency Service was omitted from First Schedule and Second Schedule of Rules of Business and was no longer shown as an autonomous body under Home Department---Consequently, Emergency Service operated as a statutory department of Government functioning independently outside ordinary departmental structure of governance under Rules of Business---Such structure was best described as a legislatively created department of Government, independent in functioning yet to some extent controlled by Government, and as an instrumentality of Government created by statute to perform specialized public functions. (c) Punjab Emergency Service Act (III of 2006)---- ----Emergency Service---Specialized public function---Operational autonomy and government accountability---Emergency Service performed rescue services across Punjab including ambulance, fire, motorbike, water, flood, height and animal rescue services through emergency helpline 1122, besides disaster preparedness, community safety, building safety, awareness and training programs---Supreme Court held that unique independent statutory department framework emerged from specialized functions of Emergency Service involving public safety, protection of life and property during emergencies and disasters---Such framework allowed operational autonomy and institutional continuity while permitting Government to retain some element of control and accountability over emergency and disaster response, which forms part of Government’s obligation to safeguard life and public safety---Larger constitutional issue whether legislature could create a department of Government, being within domain of executive under Rules of Business, was not before Court and was therefore not decided. (d) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)---- ----S. 2(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 240 & 260---Civil servant and public servant---Distinction---Supreme Court held that a civil servant is a person who is member of civil service of Province or holds a civil post in connection with affairs of Province and whose appointment and terms and conditions are governed by civil service legal framework---Public servant, on the other hand, is a broader concept, including persons performing public duties or exercising public authority under law, particularly within meaning of S.21, P.P.C. for purposes of criminal liability and public accountability---All civil servants may be members of service of Pakistan, but all persons performing functions in connection with affairs of Federation or Province are not necessarily civil servants---Statutory declaration that employees are public servants recognizes public character of their functions and ensures accountability under law, but does not confer civil servant status upon them. Cited Cases: • Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority v. Government of Sindh 2022 SCMR 595 • Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 244 • Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 • Executive Council Allama Iqbal Open University v. M. Tufail Hashmi 2010 SCMR 1484 • Muhammad Naeem v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 SCMR 301 (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 240 & 260---Service of Pakistan---Civil servant---Employees of statutory bodies and instrumentalities of Government---Test for determining civil servant status---Supreme Court held that terms “service of Pakistan” and “civil servant” are not synonymous---Status of civil servant depends on whether employee holds a civil post and whether appointment and terms and conditions of service are regulated under relevant civil servants law and rules framed thereunder---Mere fact that a body is created by statute, funded by Government, performs public functions, or is subject to some administrative supervision does not make its employees civil servants---Employees of statutory corporations, autonomous bodies, universities, banks or public institutions are not civil servants unless their service is governed by civil service legal framework---Applicable test remains whether employee’s appointment and service conditions are governed by Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and rules made thereunder, or by a separate statutory/service framework. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 • Executive Council Allama Iqbal Open University v. M. Tufail Hashmi 2010 SCMR 1484 • Muhammad Naeem v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 SCMR 301 (f) Punjab Emergency Service Act (III of 2006)---- ----S. 21---Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 21---Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 2(b)---Employees of Punjab Emergency Service---Public servants, not civil servants---Punjab Emergency Service employees were governed by Punjab Emergency Service Leave, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2007 and Punjab Emergency Service (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2022---Their appointment, discipline, performance, leave, retirement and other service matters were regulated by separate statutory framework under Act of 2006 and not by Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 or rules framed thereunder---Act of 2006 expressly declared members of Emergency Service to be public servants within meaning of S.21, P.P.C., and such declaration remained unchanged after 2021 Amendment---Supreme Court held that employees of Emergency Service could not be treated as civil servants and therefore did not fall within jurisdiction of Punjab Service Tribunal. (g) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---- ----Jurisdiction of Punjab Service Tribunal---Jurisdiction confined to civil servants---Employees of Punjab Emergency Service---Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction---Respondent, a rescue driver, challenged disciplinary proceedings before Punjab Service Tribunal, which partially allowed appeal and directed regular inquiry---Supreme Court held that Tribunal failed to correctly examine jurisdiction in light of statutory framework governing Emergency Service and settled principles laid down by Supreme Court---Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 confers jurisdiction in respect of civil servants and appeal before Tribunal lies by a civil servant---Employee of Emergency Service, being governed by separate statutory framework and declared public servant under Act of 2006, was not civil servant merely because Emergency Service was made an independent administrative department by 2021 Amendment---Proceedings before Tribunal were without lawful basis. (h) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. VII, R. 11---Interim orders on jurisdiction---Merger into final judgment---Service Tribunal earlier passed interim orders on application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. and question of jurisdiction was allegedly decided in favour of respondent---Tribunal later held that such interim orders had attained finality as they were not challenged---Supreme Court held that finding was erroneous because interim orders merged into final judgment wherein Tribunal once again addressed question of jurisdiction by holding that, due to 2021 Amendment, Emergency Service had status of independent department and Tribunal had jurisdiction---Jurisdiction being foundational issue had to be examined with care and circumspection before assuming authority over matter. Disposition: Civil Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; Supreme Court held that employees of Punjab Emergency Service are not civil servants and Punjab Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction in matters relating to their terms and conditions of service; impugned order dated 07.06.2023 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore was set aside.

Summary: (a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Initial Appointment to Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 2008---- ----R.3(i), Category (ii) & Appendix---Candidate belonging to backward area---Automatic age relaxation---Held, that where a candidate belonged to District Buner, which was included in the category of “backward areas” under the Appendix to R.3(ii) of the Rules, 2008, she was entitled to automatic relaxation of three years in upper age limit under Category (ii) of R.3(i). (b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Initial Appointment to Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 2008---- ----R.3(i), Category (iii)---General candidate---Further relaxation by appointing authority---Held, that in addition to automatic relaxation available to candidates from backward areas, a candidate could also claim relaxation available to general candidates under Category (iii) of R.3(i), whereby the appointing authority could grant relaxation up to two years in upper age limit. (c) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Initial Appointment to Civil Posts (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 2008---- ----R.4, proviso---Backward area candidate---Additional relaxation besides automatic relaxation---Held, that under the proviso to R.4 of the Rules, 2008, candidates from backward areas, in addition to automatic relaxation of three years under Category (ii) of R.3, are entitled to one of the relaxations available to government servants, general candidates or disabled candidates, whichever is relevant and applicable to them---Respondent’s case was, therefore, covered both as a backward area candidate and as a general candidate for further age relaxation. (d) Service Law---- ----Appointment---Candidate securing first position---Appointment withheld on ground of overage---Entitlement to age relaxation---Held, that where respondent had appeared in the recruitment test, secured first position amongst successful candidates, and availability of one seat was not disputed, denial of appointment solely on the ground of overage was not sustainable when the applicable rules entitled her to relaxation in upper age limit. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Service appointment---Direction to consider age relaxation---Held, that High Court rightly exercised constitutional jurisdiction by directing the competent authority to consider the respondent’s request for age relaxation where the relevant statutory rules clearly covered her case---No illegality, irregularity or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment warranting interference by the appellate Court. (f) Service Law---- ----Age relaxation---Backward area candidate from District Buner---Effect of Rules, 2008---Held, that respondent, being from District Buner, was entitled to three years automatic relaxation as a backward area candidate and further relaxation up to two years by the appointing authority as a general candidate---Her entitlement flowed directly from the Rules, 2008, and could not be defeated merely by raising a general objection of overage. Disposition: Petition was dismissed and leave was refused; judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench, directing consideration of respondent’s request for age relaxation, was maintained.

Summary: (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---- ----Jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal---Recruitment policy---Promotion quota---Modification of statutory rules/SRO---Federal Service Tribunal directed Auditor General of Pakistan to enhance promotion quota from Naib Qasid to Junior Auditor from 10% to 35% by modifying SRO No.953(1)/2011 dated 12.07.2011---Supreme Court held that jurisdiction of Service Tribunal is confined to examining grievances arising out of terms and conditions of service---Such jurisdiction does not extend to restructuring cadres, altering recruitment or promotion policy, determining promotional ratios, or directing amendment/modification of recruitment rules---Formulation of recruitment policy, including mode of appointment and quota distribution, lies within exclusive domain of competent authority---By directing enhancement of promotion quota and modification of SRO, Tribunal assumed role of policy maker and substituted its own view for that of competent authority, which was impermissible. Cited Case: • Federal Public Service Commission v. Shiraz Manzoor 2023 SCMR 2087 (b) Civil service---- ----Promotion---No vested right to promotion---Right only to be considered according to rules---Promotion in public service is neither a vested right nor an entitlement---Employee may claim consideration for promotion strictly in accordance with governing rules, subject to availability of sanctioned posts and fulfilment of prescribed criteria, but cannot compel employer department to alter recruitment policy or modify promotional ratios---Matters relating to cadre structure, quota distribution and method of appointment are administrative in nature and fall outside adjudicatory jurisdiction of Service Tribunal unless mala fides, violation of law, or infringement of vested rights is shown---Tribunal overlooked settled principle that competent authority alone is empowered to prescribe criteria and conditions relating to eligibility and promotion. (c) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973---- ----R. 3(3)---Competent authority---Power to consider modification of recruitment rules/SRO---Supreme Court held that modification of promotional quota from Naib Qasid to Junior Auditor, if required, remains within discretion of competent authority under R.3(3) of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973---Court left it to competent authority to consider whether SRO impugned before Federal Service Tribunal required modification in percentage/ratio of promotional quota---Such discretion could not be exercised by Tribunal in place of department. (d) Service law---- ----Employee accepting appointment under existing service structure---No accrued right to seek amendment of rules---Respondent was appointed as Naib Qasid in April 2014, long after promulgation of SRO No.953(1)/2011 dated 12.07.2011, and accepted appointment subject to existing service structure---Supreme Court held that no vested right had accrued in his favour to seek amendment of rules or alteration of promotion quota---Courts and Tribunals cannot direct amendment of recruitment rules or restructure promotional avenues merely to accommodate individual expectations---Tribunal exceeded jurisdiction by issuing directions which effectively rewrote governing policy framework. (e) Service law---- ----Promotion dependent upon sanctioned and available posts---Exhaustion of quota---Respondent’s case for promotion to post of Junior Auditor was rejected on ground that existing 10% quota for promotion from Naib Qasid to Junior Auditor had already been exhausted---Supreme Court held that promotion depends upon sanctioned and available posts and must be considered strictly under governing recruitment rules---Perceived inadequacy of promotional avenues could not justify judicial direction to enhance quota or modify SRO. Disposition: Civil Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; judgment dated 14.05.2025 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad was set aside; service appeal filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed; however, competent authority under R.3(3) of Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 was left at liberty to consider whether SRO No.953(1)/2011 required any modification in percentage/ratio of promotional quota from Naib Qasid to Junior Auditor.

Summary: ----Preamble---Scope---Preamble to a statue is, though not an operational part of an enactment but it is a gateway which opens purpose and intent of the Legislature, which necessitated the legislation on the subject and also sheds clear lights on the goals which the Legislator aimed to secure through the introduction of such law---Preamble of a statue therefore holds a pivotal role for the purposes of interpretation in order to dissect true purpose of intent of law. Director General, FIA and others v. Kamran Iqbal and others 2016 SCMR 447; Ms. Tradhol International SA Sociedad Unipersonal v. Ms. Shakarganj Limited 2023 CLD 819; ABWA Knowledge Pvt Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2021 Lah. 436; Chenab Flour and General Mills and others v. F.O.P through Secretary Revenue Division and others PLD 2021 Lah. 343; Messrs Jet Green (Pvt.) Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2021 Lah. 770; M.C.B. v. Adeel Shahbaz and others 2023 CLD 655; Pakistan Tehreek e Insaaf through Asad Umar v. Governor Punjab through Principal Secretary PLD 2023 Lah. 179=PLJ 2023 Lah. 467; Messrs Bahria Town Pvt v. District Consumer Court and others PLJ 2022 Lah. 199, PLD 2022 Lah. 488; F.O.P v. Nasir Munir Ahmed and others 2022 CLC 2072; Additional Registrar Company v. Al-Qaim Textile Mills Ltd 2021 CLD 931; Ch Fayyaz Hussain Wains v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 2022 Lah. 1 and Shaheen Merchant v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2021 PTD 2126 rel. (b) Foundation University Ordinance (LXXXVIII of 2002)--- ----Ss. 3 & 5---Zakat and Ushr Ordinance (XVIII of 1980), S.24---Deduction of Zakat---Exemption---Charitable institution---Proof---Petitioner / University was aggrieved of deduction of Zakat on its investments made with a financial institution---Plea raised by petitioner / University was that it was a charitable institution and was exempted from deduction of Zakat---Validity---Petitioner / University was established for paramount national interest to establish a center for advancement of education and learning of internationally acknowledged standards to the talented and deserving students of Pakistan---Petitioner / University was neither alleviated institution to the category of a charity nor there existed any operative provision in Foundation University Ordinance, 2002 for its declaration to be a charitable institution---Liability to Zakat was attached to prescribed assets held by a person or institutions defined under the law, subject to only those exemptions, which were expressly provided under S.24 of Zakat and Ushr Ordinance, 1980---Nature and character of petitioner / University, whether statutory, chartered, public service or otherwise, did not by itself create immunity, unless such immunity was grounded in the statute which the petitioner / University had failed to bring on record---Under the law, where the Legislature intended exemption, it had done so explicitly---Absence of such expression must be construed as deliberate---Petitioner / University did not place on record any specific document, nor pointed out any specific provision in its parent statute or in Foundation University Ordinance, 2002 granting exemption from Zakat liability---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter as the petitioner / University failed to demonstrate any illegality in the letter issued by authorities holding petitioner / University liable to deduction of Zakat---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Administrator General Zakat, Central Zakat Administration, Islamabad v. Pakistan Insurance Corporation through Secretary and others PLD 2016 SC 448; Liaquat National Hospital v. Province of Sindh and others 2019 SCMR 865 and Pakistan Telecommunication Employees' Trust v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2017 SC 718 ref. Administrator General Zakat, Central Zakat Administration, Islamabad v. Pakistan Insurance Corporation through Secretary and others PLD 2016 SC 448 distinguished. Sayyid Murtaza Ali Pirzada with Syed Muaz Ali for Petitioner. Barrister Zain Mansoor, Assistant Attorney General for Respondents. Muhammad Irshad, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents. Binyamin Abbasi for Respondent No. 6 / Higher Education Commission. Nisar A. Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court / Amicus Curiae. Dates of hearing: 18th November, 2025 and 20th February, 2026. (i) to decide teaching method and strategies in order to ensure the most effective educational and training programmes;

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.18---Public employment---Right to compete for public appointment---Transparent and fair recruitment---Held, that the process of public appointments is anchored in constitutional guarantees, particularly Art.18, which includes the right of citizens to compete for appointment to posts in Federal or Provincial Government departments, attached departments, autonomous bodies and corporations through open competition---Such right can only be meaningfully exercised where recruitment is transparent, fair, just and free from bias or doubt regarding integrity of the process. (b) Service Law---- ----Public appointments---Class-IV recruitment---Competing recommendations by two Departmental Selection Committees---Irregular recruitment process---Effect---Held, that where two sets of candidates claimed rights over the same public posts, one on the basis of recommendations of the first Committee and the other on the basis of appointment orders issued on recommendations of the second Committee, and serious procedural irregularities surrounded both processes, relief could not be granted exclusively to one group at the expense of the other---Court was required to adopt a balanced approach preserving fairness, transparency and equal treatment. (c) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989---- ----Rr.10 & 11---Class-IV appointments---Public notice/advertisement---Requirement---Held, that public appointments are required to be made in accordance with the prescribed recruitment procedure, including public notice/advertisement where applicable---However, in the peculiar circumstances, since candidates had already been invited through the District Employment Exchange pursuant to earlier publication and the same list was available on record, fresh advertisement was not directed; instead, recruitment was ordered to be re-initiated from the already available list. (d) Service Law---- ----Recruitment process initiated by competent authority---Procedural lapses by department---Candidates not guilty of fraud or misrepresentation---Effect---Held, that where appointments are made through a process initiated by the competent authority pursuant to public advertisement, and appointees possess prescribed qualifications, they ordinarily cannot be penalized for procedural lapses or administrative irregularities attributable to the authorities, particularly in absence of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment or active connivance on their part---Ordinarily, action should be taken against the delinquent authority rather than punishing innocent appointees. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Akhtar Shirani v. Punjab Text Book Board and others 2004 SCMR 1077 • Abdul Hafeez Abbasi v. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi and others 2002 SCMR 1034 • Secretary to the Government of N.W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 8413 (e) Service Law---- ----Public appointments---Humanitarian consideration---Retention in service despite irregular recruitment---Held, that recruitment to public posts must stand or fall on legality rather than sympathy---Recommendation for retention of appointees merely on humanitarian grounds, without proper examination of applicable rules and recruitment record, is alien to service jurisprudence. (f) Service Law---- ----Departmental Selection Committee---Official record---Minutes retained in personal custody by former Medical Superintendent---Effect---Held, that unexplained retention of minutes of a Selection Committee meeting in personal custody for more than six months, instead of placing the same in official record or forwarding through proper channel before transfer, raised serious questions of transparency, procedural propriety and institutional regularity---Administrative authorities could not reasonably be expected to act upon recommendations which were neither formally communicated nor duly placed on record at the relevant time. (g) Service Law---- ----Recruitment---Inquiry reports---Conflicting findings---Judicial scrutiny---Held, that where two departmental inquiries regarding the same recruitment process produced materially different conclusions, Court was required to carefully examine the record and surrounding facts---First inquiry’s recommendation to retain appointees on humanitarian basis could not override subsequently identified verifiable irregularities, including appointments to posts not properly advertised, overage candidates, appointments to gender-specific posts, and irregular constitution/functioning of the Selection Committee. (h) Service Law---- ----Recruitment process---High Court judgment based on non-reading/misreading of record---Effect---Held, that High Court failed to consider material aspects, including the non-availability of first Committee’s minutes in official record until after the previous Medical Superintendent’s transfer, competing claims of two sets of candidates, and irregularities found in departmental inquiries---Such non-reading and misreading materially affected adjudication; therefore, impugned judgment could not be sustained in its original form. (i) Service Law---- ----Competing claims over same posts---Fresh recruitment from existing candidate list---Age requirement---Relevant date---Held, that where both sets of candidates were affected without fault of their own, appropriate relief was to set aside both the first Committee’s recommendations and the appointment orders issued on recommendations of the second Committee, and to direct re-initiation of recruitment from the already available candidate list---Eligibility and suitability of each candidate were to be examined in accordance with prescribed requirements, including age, qualification and character verification---No candidate was to be disqualified solely on age if he met the maximum age requirement on the date of advertisement, i.e., 02.02.2020. (j) Service Law---- ----Class-IV public appointments---Discretion of appointing authority---Public trust---Held, that appointments to lower posts such as Naib Qasid, Sweeper and Chowkidar require utmost care, diligence and integrity, especially because such posts involve wide discretion due to absence of stringent qualifications---Such discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised as a sacred public trust, as appointees are paid from the public exchequer and the public has a right to be served by the most suitable candidates. (k) Service Law---- ----Recruitment irregularities---Departmental proceedings against delinquent officers---Direction---Held, that where recruitment process suffered from serious irregularities attributable to officers/officials, the proper course included initiation of departmental proceedings against delinquent officers in accordance with relevant laws and rules so that such irregularities are not repeated. Disposition: Petitions were converted into appeals and partly allowed; impugned judgment was modified; recommendations of the first Committee and appointment orders issued on recommendations of the second Committee were set aside as void ab initio; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa was directed to re-initiate recruitment for the same posts from the existing list of candidates, without fresh advertisement, complete the process within sixty days, and initiate departmental proceedings against delinquent officers/officials.

Summary: (a) Pakistan Engineering Council Act (V of 1976)---- ----Ss. 2(xxv), 2(xxvii), 12 & 16---“Professional engineer”, “registered engineer” and “professional engineering work”---Scope and connotation---Supreme Court examined cautionary note in Maula Bux Shaikh requiring Government not to allow any person to perform professional engineering work unless he possessed accredited engineering qualification and was registered under Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1975---Court held that term “professional engineer” has specific connotation and refers to persons who are in profession of engineering and practise as such to tender technical advice in respect of work involving engineering skill---After 2011 amendments, category of “registered engineer” was introduced to include person holding accredited engineering qualification, whether working privately or in employment of engineering public organisation, and registered with Pakistan Engineering Council---Such registered engineers may perform professional engineering work within framework of Act, though they are not authorised to independently sign off designs. Cited Cases: • Maula Bux Shaikh and others v. Chief Minister Sindh and others 2018 SCMR 2098 / 2019 PLC (CS) 282 • Fida Hussain v. Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad and another PLD 1995 SC 701 • Muhammad Azim Jamali and 11 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary/Chairman, Ministry of Railways and 33 others 1992 PLC (CS) 637 • Pakistan Engineering Council through Registrar v. Muhammad Azim Jamali and 44 others 1994 SCMR 1807 (b) Pakistan Engineering Council Act (V of 1976)---- ----S. 2(xxv)---Professional engineering work---Interpretation---Professional advice and opinion as core functions---Supreme Court held that “professional engineering work” primarily encompasses services and works ordinarily performed by professional engineer in practice, especially provision of professional advice and opinion---Other works and services mentioned in S.2(xxv) must be read in conjunction with these core functions---If such words were read disjunctively, absurd consequences would follow, because masons, head mistris, overseers, assistant engineers and other staff who take measurements, prepare layouts, reports and specifications under supervision, but do not hold engineering degrees, would become disqualified from ordinary job functions---Such result could not have been legislative intent. (c) Pakistan Engineering Council Act (V of 1976)---- ----2011 Amendment---Registered engineer---Purpose---Engineering public organisations---Supreme Court held that introduction of “registered engineer” category was meant to streamline functioning of Government and Government-controlled organisations by enabling public entities to assign or delegate professional engineering work to their own qualified engineers registered with Pakistan Engineering Council, thereby reducing burden of hiring professional engineers from outside---However, inclusion of registered engineers in Act does not limit Government’s power to prescribe qualifications, recruitment criteria, postings, transfers, promotions or service conditions for employees in engineering-related departments. (d) Civil service---- ----Promotion policy---Academic qualification---Government’s domain---Pakistan Engineering Council Act not controlling service terms---Supreme Court held that provisions of Pakistan Engineering Council Act regulate practice of professional engineering work and registration with Council; they do not regulate terms and conditions of civil servants, nor restrict Government’s authority to frame policies regarding recruitment, promotion, job responsibilities, posting or service conditions---Government may allow employees to progress within same cadre according to its rules and policies, but if any employee is required to perform professional engineering work as defined in Act, such work must be performed only by professional engineer or registered engineer. (e) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 25---Equality and non-discrimination---Same cadre---No creation of separate classes merely by enforcement of PEC Act---Question before larger Bench was whether restricting an Executive Engineer BS-18 from performing professional engineering work would create divergent classes within same cadre, offending Art.25---Supreme Court held that enforcement of PEC Act does not create distinct classifications of employees within same Government cadre---Act merely ensures that professional engineering work is undertaken by authorised professional or registered engineers; service progression within cadre remains subject to Government rules and policies. (f) Pakistan Engineering Council Act (V of 1976)---- ----Ss. 2(xxv), 12 & 16---Government departments---Employment on professional engineering work---Registration requirement---Supreme Court held that after amendments to Act, no person may practise as professional engineer, serve as professional consultant, or perform as registered engineer for executing professional engineering work without prior registration with Pakistan Engineering Council or temporary licence under S.12---Likewise, no engineering public organisation may employ a person as professional engineer, professional consultant or registered engineer unless his name appears on register maintained by Council under S.16. (g) Precedent---- ----Cautionary note in Maula Bux Shaikh---Meaning and effect---Supreme Court clarified that cautionary note in Maula Bux Shaikh is confined to professional engineering work under S.2(xxv) of Pakistan Engineering Council Act---It prevents Government from allowing persons lacking necessary statutory authorisation to undertake professional engineering work and reminds that non-compliance may attract penalties under Act---It does not mean that all civil servants in engineering departments must be registered engineers for every administrative or cadre-related purpose, nor does it invalidate Government promotion policies by itself. (h) Civil service---- ----Transfer orders---Underlying justification based on PEC Act cautionary note---Tribunal order set aside---Appellant’s transfer/rescission issue was earlier dealt with in reported order of Supreme Court, and larger Bench addressed remaining question regarding justification founded on PEC Act cautionary note---Supreme Court concluded that Government was required to consider appellant’s case in light of clarified legal position: service progression and cadre matters remain within Government policy domain, while performance of professional engineering work remains subject to PEC Act registration requirements. Disposition: Appeal was allowed; Sindh Service Tribunal’s order dated 28.01.2021 was set aside; respondents were directed to consider appellant’s case in accordance with conclusions recorded by Supreme Court in the present judgment and paragraph 6 of the earlier reported order; all pending CMAs were disposed of.