Summary: (The Authorized officer cannot issue directions to the competent authority to decide the disciplinary proceedings in a particular manner nor could direct to conduct de novo inquiry if proceedings were dropped/filed after due consideration) The case involved a dispute over the inter-se seniority of Fida Hussain, who was appointed as a Patwari on a regular basis on 21st July 1996. The respondent No. 7, appointed as Patwari on an ad hoc basis on 14th September 1988, had to qualify the Patwar Training Course to become a regular employee. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 7 appeared in the Patwar Course Examination in November 1996 without possessing the required qualifications. The petitioner filed a service appeal before the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, which was allowed on 26th November 2019. During the appeal, the petitioner discovered irregularities in the appointment of respondent No. 7 and filed a complaint to the Chief Secretary, KPK. An inquiry was conducted, which found the appointment of respondent No. 7 to be illegal and recommended disciplinary action. However, no action was taken by the competent authority due to the ongoing inter-se seniority dispute between the parties. Respondent No. 7, aggrieved by the order to conduct a de novo inquiry, filed a writ petition in the Peshawar High Court. The High Court allowed the petition, stating that the direction to conduct a fresh inquiry resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court heard the arguments and concluded that the bone of contention in the case was the eligibility of respondent No. 7 to be appointed as a Patwari. The Court held that the competent authority had the discretion to accept or reject the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer and that a de novo inquiry was not justified. The Court emphasized that the competent authority should impose a penalty, if required, based on the gravity of charges and after providing a right of personal hearing to the accused. The respondent No. 7 had also filed another application related to the seniority list, which was disposed of by the Tribunal on 15th July 2022. The Court noted that the petitioner's pending appeal regarding the fixation of inter-se seniority was before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Court directed the Tribunal to decide the pending appeal within two months.

Summary: The petitioner claimed restoration of seniority from back dates.Held: There can be no exception to the rule that the delay in seeking the remedy of appeal, review or revision beyond the period of limitation provided under the statute, in absence of reasonable explanation, cannot be condoned and in the same manner if the remedy of writ petition is not availed within reasonable time, the interference can be refused on the ground of laches.

Summary: [Rule 12.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 - Seniority to be reckoned from the date of confirmation - Concept of organizational justice] The dispute revolved around the determination of seniority and the implementation of a judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appellants argued that they had been confirmed in their positions as Sub-Inspectors from the date of their appointment, following a circular issued by the Inspector General of Police in 2004. They claimed that their seniority had been affected by the implementation of the impugned judgment. On the other hand, the respondents argued that they had been granted revised confirmation and had seniority rights based on their dates of appointment. They contended that their positions on the Seniority List had been revised after the implementation of the impugned judgment. The Supreme Court analyzed the case, considered relevant case law, and referred to the Police Rules, 1934, and the Police Order, 2002. They focused on Rule 12.2(3) of the Police Rules, which provided guidelines for determining seniority. After careful deliberation, the Supreme Court concluded that the seniority of upper subordinates should be initially reckoned from the date of first appointment. However, the final seniority would be determined based on the date of confirmation. They emphasized the importance of completing the probationary period and qualifying the required training courses.In light of the legal analysis, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment dated 30 November 2018 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal. They ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that their seniority should be determined from the date of their first appointment and confirmation. The Court ordered the restoration of the appellants' original seniority and directed the concerned authorities to revise the Seniority List accordingly. The case provided clarification on the mode of determining seniority for police officers in the Punjab Police under the Police Rules.

Summary: The primary issue in these appeals is the interpretation and applicability of the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Adhoc Appointments) Act, 1994, and its amendment, the Sindh Civil Servants (Regularization of Adhoc Appointments) (Amendment) Act, 2014. The private respondents filed appeals before the Tribunal, contending that their seniority was adversely affected by notifications issued under the 2014 Act, which granted benefits to the appellants. The appellants argue that the 2014 Act should be given effect, while the private respondents claim that the appellants' appointments were illegal and their seniority should commence from the date of regularization. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants sought an adjournment, which was denied by the court due to prior adjournments and the availability of video-link facilities. The court reviewed the relevant acts, judgments, and arguments presented by the parties. The court noted that the 2014 Act aimed to retroactively benefit the appellants at the expense of the vested rights of the private respondents, who entered service through the Sindh Public Service Commission. The court highlighted the constitutional principles of non-discrimination (Article 25(1)) and non-discrimination in the service of Pakistan (Article 27(1)), except for positive discrimination. Ultimately, the court found that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the 2014 Act and the relevant precedents, including Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v Federation of Pakistan. The court concluded that the amendment brought by the 2014 Act, which attempted to take away the constitutional rights of the appellants after twenty years, was not constitutionally valid. The court dismissed the appeals, upholding the impugned judgment, and disposed of the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 103 of 2022.

Summary: [(1) Discussion on Rule 7 of the Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990 and Rule 5 and 11 of Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre & Seniority) Rules, 1985. (2) In the jurisprudence of service laws, no one has a vested right to a particular promotion or particular seniority. No antedated seniority can be claimed as a vested right] The petitioner, challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi Bench, which dismissed his appeal. The petitioner joined the Pakistan Navy and later joined the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) after being appointed through the Federal Public Service Commission. However, he was repeatedly deferred from joining the Common Training Program (CTP) due to his role as an ADC to the Governor of Sindh. The petitioner claimed seniority from the date of his regular appointment without qualifying for the CTP. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to seniority from the date of his regular appointment in accordance with the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre & Seniority) Rules, 1985. He claimed discrimination in not being assigned seniority with the 35th CTP and contended that his deferment was due to the exigency of service. The respondent, the Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, argued that the petitioner was appointed to the PSP on the reserved quota of Armed Forces and that his seniority would be determined after passing the final examination according to the Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990. The court examined the terms and conditions of the petitioner's appointment and the rules governing seniority. It found that the petitioner had accepted the terms of his appointment, which clearly stated that seniority would be determined after passing the final examination. The petitioner had been continuously deferred from joining the CTP, and it was not established that he had objected to these deferments. The court concluded that the petitioner's seniority was properly fixed in accordance with the rules and regulations. It emphasized that the fixation of seniority is not a fundamental right and must be determined based on applicable rules and conditions. The court also referred to an Office Memorandum issued by the Establishment Division in 2015, which specified that seniority would be fixed with the batch of the CTP the probationers undergo. Based on these considerations, the court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal and denied his request for antedated seniority with the 35th CTP. The petitioner's seniority was deemed to be properly fixed with the 43rd CTP, the batch he eventually joined.

Summary: The primary issue concerns the seniority of employees whose services were regularized under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. Siraj Khan filed a departmental appeal, which remained unanswered, and subsequently approached the Peshawar High Court. When the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal became functional, the High Court referred the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal accepted Siraj Khan's appeal and set aside the seniority list issued by the official respondents. It directed the department to correct and modify the list, placing employees whose services were regularized under the Act senior to those recommended by the KPPSC after the Act's commencement.The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Act and the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003. It concluded that the recommendations of the first batch of candidates, including the appellants, were made by the KPPSC before the Act's commencement. Therefore, the subsequent recommendations made on different dates should be deemed to have been made on the dates of the first batch's recommendations. Accordingly, the Court held that the services of the employees regularised under the Act should rank junior to those candidates recommended by the KPPSC before the Act's commencement. As a result, the Court allowed all the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's orders, and affirmed the seniority list issued by the official respondents, placing the appellants senior to those whose services were regularised under the Act.

Summary: The Supreme Court examined two main questions in the case. Firstly, whether the constitutional petitions were maintainable before the High Court in light of the specific bar under Article 212(2) of the Constitution, which grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Balochistan Service Tribunal for matters related to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants. The Court concluded that the constitutional petitions were not maintainable as the Tribunal was functional during the relevant time. Secondly, the Court considered whether there should be a joint seniority list of DSPs from all cadres/branches or separate lists depending on the nature of work. The Court noted that it is common practice in all provinces, including Islamabad Capital Territory, to prepare separate seniority lists for DSPs of the legal/prosecution branch compared to other branches. The relevant laws and rules governing the Balochistan Police did not explicitly address the issue of separate or joint seniority lists. However, considering the different branches within the police force and the distinct qualifications, training, and job responsibilities of the legal/prosecution branch, the Court found that the issuance of separate seniority lists was reasonable and aligned with practices in other provinces.Based on these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment.

Summary: Rule 8 of KP Civil Servant (Appointment & promotion & transfer) Rule, 1989 provides for inter-Provincial transfer of officials leave not applicable to the instant case, whoever, inter-district transfer is involved. Petitioner was transferred on need basis by the competent authority but he is not given his due seniority. this court can interfere where action of an authority are not in accordance with law.Petition Allowed.

Summary: [Service Matter, Seniority. FBISE under section 5, 17 of the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1975] The petitioner challenges the appointment of the respondent and the seniority list that shows the respondent as senior to the petitioner. The petitioner argues that the appointment was in violation of transparency principles and that the respondent was appointed for a position he did not apply for. The petitioner also alleges that the father of the respondent, who was a member of the selection committee, influenced the appointment process. The counsel for the respondents argues that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear the petition and that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. They assert that the respondent was eligible and qualified for the appointment. The court examines the relevant provisions of the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Act, 1975, and the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Employees (Service) Regulations, 2005. It emphasizes the importance of transparency in recruitment processes, citing various Supreme Court cases that highlight the need for equal opportunity and fair selection processes. Based on the principles of transparency and equal opportunity, the court concludes that vacant posts should be filled in a transparent manner. It cites Supreme Court judgments that emphasize the importance of fairness and due diligence in appointments. The court notes that discriminatory selection processes infringe upon constitutional rights. In light of the above, the court dismisses the instant petition. The order is signed by Judge Athar Minallah.

Summary: ''The seniority of the respondents was to be determined in terms of Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, which provided that seniority of persons on deputation was to be reckoned from the date of their regular appointment/permanent absorption in the transferee Group or Department and not from their posting or transfer (date) or any earlier date.''