Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Arts. 199, 212(1)(a), 240 & 260(1) ---- Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal --- Jurisdiction --- Whether members of the Islamabad Judicial Service are in the “service of Pakistan” for the purpose of attracting the constitutional bar under Art.212(2) --- Held, that the Islamabad Judicial Service, constituted under Rule 3 of the Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, 2011 framed under Art.203 read with section 6 of the Islamabad High Court Act, 2010, was not a service or post in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province, nor was it an All-Pakistan Service or service in the Armed Forces --- Not declared to be “service of Pakistan” by Act of Parliament under Art.260(1) --- Members of Islamabad Judicial Service therefore not in the service of Pakistan within meaning of Arts.212(1)(a), 240 & 260(1) --- Consequently, bar contained in Art.212(2) not attracted and constitutional petition maintainable. Cited cases: Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation PLD 2006 SC 602 ref. (b) Administrative law ---- Limitation on powers of appellate tribunal functioning under a statute ---- Scope ---- Appellate authority’s jurisdiction confined to powers expressly conferred by statute creating it --- It cannot enlarge its jurisdiction or decide issues beyond those the original authority could have determined --- Tribunal under Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016 (“2016-Act”) thus bound by section 6(1) thereof, limiting its power to confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against --- It could not adjudicate upon matters not brought before it through an appeal or act beyond its statutory remit. Cited case: Standard Printing Press v. Sind Employees’ Social Security Institution 1988 SCMR 91 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art.199 ---- Writ jurisdiction --- Maintainability --- Order passed without lawful authority, void or coram non judice --- High Court’s duty to strike down orders passed without jurisdiction --- Where statutory tribunal acts in excess of authority or without jurisdiction, its order is nullity --- Availability of alternate remedy becomes immaterial --- High Court may exercise constitutional jurisdiction to rectify such illegality. Cited cases: Abdul Majeed Khan v. Maheen Begum 2014 SCMR 1524; Izhar Alam Farooqi v. Sheikh Abdul Sattar Lasi 2008 SCMR 240; Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan PLD 1981 Kar. 290 ref. (d) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art.175(2) & 199 ---- Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016 ---- Suo motu jurisdiction --- Tribunal not vested with suo motu power --- Jurisdiction of Tribunal dependent on appeal filed by aggrieved member against final order of departmental authority concerning terms and conditions of service --- Reconstitution of Tribunal by Presidential Notification dated 18.03.2025 not impugned before it --- Tribunal’s act of taking suo motu cognizance and setting aside notification amounted to judicial overreach and was coram non judice --- Tribunal exceeded statutory powers under ss.5 & 6 of the 2016-Act. Cited case: Federal Government Employees Housing Authority v. Ednan Syed PLD 2025 SC 11 ref. (e) Administrative tribunals ---- Adjudication of vires of law creating the tribunal ---- Competence ---- Forum created under a statute cannot adjudicate upon vires of the statute or notification under which it has been constituted --- Only High Court under Art.199 possesses jurisdiction to examine validity of law or notification creating such forum --- Tribunal, therefore, not competent to set aside Presidential Notification reconstituting itself. Cited cases: Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan PLD 1995 SC 66; Humayun Saifullah Khan v. Federation PLD 1990 SC 599 ref. (f) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Art.199(1)(b)(ii) ---- Writ of quo warranto --- Scope --- Power to issue writ of quo warranto exclusively vested in High Court --- Tribunal constituted under 2016-Act not empowered to exercise such jurisdiction --- By setting aside notification appointing Chairman and Members of reconstituted Tribunal, erstwhile Tribunal wrongly exercised quo warranto powers beyond its competence. (g) Constitution of Pakistan ---- Arts.4 & 10A ---- Fair trial and due process --- Right of hearing --- Notification of reconstitution of Tribunal set aside without affording opportunity of hearing to affected parties including the Federation, President, and Islamabad High Court --- Proceedings vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and right to fair trial --- Any order passed without notice and hearing is void. Cited cases: Federal Government Employees Housing Authority v. Ednan Syed PLD 2025 SC 11; Muhammad Yousaf v. Province of Sindh 2024 SCMR 1689; Mohsin Shah v. Federation 2023 PLC(CS) 1467; New Jubilee Insurance Co. v. NBP PLD 1999 SC 1126; Ishtiaq Ahmed v. Competent Authority 2016 SCMR 943 ref. (h) Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act, 2016 ---- Section 7 ---- Review jurisdiction --- Scope and effect --- Tribunal’s observation suspending its own review powers for thirty days to enable appeal before Supreme Court declared uncalled for and contrary to law --- Power of review conferred by s.7 broad enough to correct errors apparent on face of record or other sufficient cause --- Redundancy cannot be attributed to legislature --- Tribunal’s comments rendering s.7 ineffective unsustainable. Cited cases: Haji Tooti v. FBR 2023 PTD 1617; Collector of Sales Tax v. Mega Tech (Pvt.) Ltd. 2005 SCMR 1166 ref. (i) Constitutional jurisdiction ---- High Court’s interference limited to question of law regarding constitution of tribunal ---- High Court converted petition into review petition under s.7 of 2016-Act and directed Tribunal to proceed according to law ---- Interference confined to resolving jurisdictional defect, not merits of service dispute. Disposition: Petition allowed in above terms; impugned order dated 21.03.2025 of erstwhile Tribunal set aside to extent of quashing notification dated 18.03.2025; case remitted to duly constituted Tribunal for review proceedings.