Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Administrative Law – Appointment to Public Office – Tenure Determination ----Public office appointments must be made strictly in accordance with the advertised terms and conditions----Where an advertisement explicitly states the tenure of office, the executive cannot subsequently alter the duration post-appointment----The extension of tenure beyond the advertised period violates the principles of fairness, transparency, and due process. Cited Cases: Muhammad Shafeeq vs. Federation of Pakistan (2023 PLC(C.S.) 205) Usmat Batool vs. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2013 PLC(C.S.) 484) (b) Constitutional Law – Role of the President in Executive Appointments – Article 48 of the Constitution ----The President, while appointing public officeholders under a statute, is bound to act on the advice of the Prime Minister and does not have independent discretion unless expressly provided----The appointment of the Chairman PARC under Section 9 of the PARC Ordinance must conform to constitutional requirements and cannot be treated as an exclusive presidential prerogative. Cited Cases: Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhera vs. The President (PLD 2020 Islamabad 1) University of the Punjab vs. Ch. Sardar Ali (1992 SCMR 1093) (c) Executive Discretion – Judicial Review of Policy Decisions ----Courts have the authority to review executive decisions where they violate principles of due process, transparency, and fairness----Judicial restraint does not apply where the question pertains to the legality of a public appointment rather than a mere policy decision. Cited Cases: Muhammad Yasin vs. Federation (PLD 2012 SC 132) Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana vs. Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1159) (d) Quo Warranto – Challenge to Public Office Holders – Locus Standi ----A writ of quo warranto may be filed by any member of the public to question the legality of a public officeholder's appointment----Courts can deny relief if the petition is filed with mala fide intent, but mere delay in filing does not bar maintainability unless bad faith is demonstrated. Cited Cases: Qazi Hussain Ahmed vs. General Parvez Musharraf (PLD 2002 SC 853) Jawad Ahmad Mir vs. Prof. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Khan (2023 SCMR 162) (e) Fair Competition in Public Sector Appointments – Non-Alteration of Advertisement Terms ----The government must adhere to the advertised tenure and selection criteria for public sector appointments----Modifying the tenure post-appointment undermines transparency and may deprive other candidates of an equal opportunity to compete. Cited Cases: Muhammad Yasin vs. Federation (PLD 2012 SC 132) Dr. Naveeda Tufail vs. Government of Punjab (2003 SCMR 291) Disposition: Petition allowed. The extension of tenure for respondent No.6 beyond the advertised two-year period was declared unlawful. The appointment was deemed expired, and the office of Chairman PARC was declared vacant. The government was directed to fill the position afresh in accordance with legal requirements.

Summary: (On appeal against order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Misc. Petition No. 241 of 2019 in Appeal No. 3124(R)CS of 2012). (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----Ss. 4 & 5---Service Tribunal, duties of---Pro forma promotion---Retirement of civil servant---Grievance of civil servant was that his case for promotion to BS-22 was placed before High Power Selection Board but due to paucity of time matter could not be decided and before next meeting he had retired from service---Directions issued by Service Tribunal were not complied with by the authorities---Validity---Federal Service Tribunal is the first judicial fact finding forum provided for civil servants, to ensure implementation of its orders/ judgments, come what may, unless it is set aside by Supreme Court---It is the function of Federal Service Tribunal to execute its orders and judgments in letter and spirit---To ensure timely and proper execution and implementation of its judgments and orders, Federal Service Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under section 5 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, is always deemed to be a Civil Court with all powers as are vested in such Court under Civil Procedure Code,1908 for execution---In case of delay or evasion, Service Tribunal should take all necessary steps to enforce compliance with its judgments and orders to alleviate suffering of recipient of judgment or order, rather than divesting itself of jurisdiction or simply disposing of miscellaneous petition of civil servant without ensuring proper implementation---Supreme Court set aside order passed by Service Tribunal and remanded the matter to High Power Selection Board to consider case of civil servant for proforma promotion to BS-22---Appeal was allowed. (b) Maxim--- ----Interest republicaeut sit finis litium---Connotation---It is in the interest of State that there should be an end to litigation. Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar AIR 2004 SC 904 rel. Habib Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Ashiq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Rana Asadullah Khan, Additional Advocate General for Pakistan along with Sajid-ul-Hassan, S.O., Establishment on Court Notice. Date of hearing: 14th January, 2025. (b) where a judgment is passed against the government the possibility of filing an appeal against it should be examined well within time in consultation with the Law and Justice Division; and (c) where a judgment is not desired to be challenged the same should be implemented forthwith.

Summary: (a) Ehtesab Bureau—Appointment of Chairman; constitutional and institutional safeguards ----Azad Jammu & Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Act, 2001 (EBA), S. 6 (as amended 2020); Public Offices—Independence and integrity of anti-corruption institutions—Interpretation of eligibility, suitability and appointment procedure. Resignation of the impugned appointee rendered appeal infructuous, yet Supreme Court examined principles for future appointments to preserve institutional integrity of Ehtesab Bureau—Held, Ehtesab Bureau performs pivotal role in eradicating corruption and ensuring accountability; its Chairman is the cornerstone of the Bureau’s functional and moral authority—Position demands unimpeachable integrity, impartiality, competence, and independence—Integrity is not an accessory but an intrinsic element of qualification—Possession of technical eligibility (e.g., being qualified as Judge or senior civil servant) alone is insufficient without proven honesty and character—Appointment process under current S.6 vests discretion solely in the executive, lacking transparency and bipartisan consultation, hence prone to politicization and conflict of interest—Recommended legislative reforms to align selection process with standards under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, ensuring bipartisan consultation (Prime Minister and Leader of Opposition), independent parliamentary committee oversight, fixed tenure, and secure removal procedure through judicial inquiry—Government directed not to make further appointments of Chairman Ehtesab Bureau until suitable amendments are enacted. (b) Administrative law—Integrity as part of qualification; scope of suitability ----Principles of good governance—Eligibility versus suitability—Integrity, honesty, character, merit, and efficiency deemed integral to qualification for high public offices; mere possession of formal criteria not sufficient—Relied on: Mrs. Shaheen Ashai v. Muhammad Anwar Chaudhary (2014 SCR 1169); Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi v. Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan (2014 SCR 43); Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132); Tariq Aziz-ud-Din (2010 SCMR 1301); Centre for PIL v. Union of India (AIR 2011 SC 1267)—Courts emphasized that institutions enforcing accountability or regulating merit must be led by persons of unquestionable integrity; suitability evaluation must extend beyond academic or technical fitness to moral and ethical probity. (c) Comparative framework—Pakistan NAB model and AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau ----S.6 of EBA contrasted with S.6 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999— NAB appointment procedure entails consultation between Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition and, failing consensus, reference to a bipartisan parliamentary committee ensuring transparency and balance—EBA confers unilateral discretion on Prime Minister’s advice to President—Supreme Court observed that concentration of appointment power in one political executive defeats the very object of accountability and raises issues of conflict of interest—Recommended replication of NAB’s consultative and bipartisan safeguards in AJ&K framework. (d) Perks and privileges—Equivalence to Judge High Court; impermissibility ----Administrative practice; 2016 SCR 206 followed. Grant of pay and privileges equivalent to a High Court Judge to Chairman Ehtesab Bureau held contrary to the spirit of the Constitution—Such parity permissible only for constitutional/judicial offices performing identical functions—Government may devise appropriate package but must refrain from labeling it “perks and privileges equal to Judge High Court.” (e) Public accountability and reform directives ----Governance and institutional independence—Court noted public perception of misuse of Bureau for political ends; urged Government to reform law to ensure apolitical appointments, security of tenure, transparent selection, and rationalization of law-officer cadre to reduce fiscal burden—Cited Azad Govt v. Sardar Muhammad Mukhtar Khan (2016 SCR 206) and Ehtesab Bureau v. Abid Hussain (2015 SCR 408). Disposition: Appeal disposed of in view of respondent’s resignation; observations issued in public interest. Government directed not to appoint any new Chairman Ehtesab Bureau until suitable statutory amendments ensuring transparent, merit-based, and bipartisan process are enacted. Perks and privileges equal to Judge High Court declared impermissible. No order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 ----Art. 189---Precedent---Binding effect of Supreme Court decisions---Scope--- Judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (“Tribunal”) was set aside for relying upon an earlier judgment [Appeal No.1815(R)CS/2017] that had already been reversed by the Supreme Court prior to the impugned decision---Held, once the Supreme Court has set aside a judgment, it ceases to be binding or authoritative for future reference---Tribunal’s reliance on a judgment no longer in the field was declared per incuriam and contrary to binding precedent under Art.189 of the Constitution---Even obiter dicta of the Supreme Court carries significant persuasive value---Legal principle reiterated that judgments rendered in ignorance of binding authority are not valid precedents. Cited Cases: • Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2010 SC 483 • Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson, (1947) 2 All ER 193 • Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling, (1955) 2 QB 379 • Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., (1944 KB 718) (b) Civil Service---Service Tribunals Act, 1973 ----Fixation of pay---Rounding off---Point-to-point formula---Tribunal’s jurisdiction--- Federal Government employees sought re-fixation of pay under the Basic Pay Scales, 2007, asserting denial of a 15% increase as approved by the President---Tribunal allowed the appeal by relying on earlier precedent---Held, fixation was carried out as per point-to-point formula and international accounting standards involving rounding off to nearest 5th or 10th increment---Such rounding practices are valid under IFRS and GAAP and cannot be termed arbitrary or discriminatory---Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere in policy matters unless the policy is shown to be patently illegal or unreasonable---Respondent’s claim was unsupported by law or evidence. Cited Cases: • Federation of Pakistan v. Abdul Rasheed Memon, SC Judgment dated 28.04.2022 (CPLA No.947/2019 & 974/2019) • Founding Minds, “Rounding Numbers in the Financial Domain”, [Online Source] • CPLA No.1815(R)CS/2017, FST Judgment (relied upon but set aside) (c) Evidence Act / Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Undertaking---Estoppel---Refund of monetary benefits--- Respondent employee had submitted a written undertaking agreeing to refund excess pay if the earlier Tribunal judgment (on which his case was based) was set aside---Despite this, respondent sought to benefit from the reversed ruling---Held, in view of the binding undertaking, respondent was estopped from claiming entitlement to revised fixation and consequential benefits---Court stressed enforceability of such acknowledgments and rejected subsequent contrary claims. (d) General Clauses Act, 1897 ----S. 21---Reversal of administrative benefit---Scope--- Tribunal misapplied S.21 of the General Clauses Act by holding that reduction of pay increase from 15% to 14.92% violated Presidential orders---Held, marginal rounding during fixation as per accounting standards does not amount to reduction of the sanctioned benefit---Administrative rounding aligned with financial policy, and no illegality was shown in the method adopted. (e) Limitation & Judicial Conduct ----Review petition---Concealment---Finality of judgments--- Respondent failed to disclose before Supreme Court that a review petition against the impugned Tribunal judgment had been dismissed---Such concealment was material and affected adjudication---Held, judgments attain finality unless challenged properly and transparently---Attempt to seek relief by suppression of material facts undermines judicial integrity. Disposition: Civil Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 27.07.2023 set aside. Service Appeal No.134(K)CS/2021 dismissed.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Article 130(6) Cabinet Approval – Regularization of Posts – Financial Sanction Required The Supreme Court held that regularization of posts requires mandatory approval from the provincial cabinet under Article 130(6) of the Constitution. Cabinet approval is a collective responsibility and cannot be substituted by recommendations from cabinet sub-committees or any individual authority. Without proper budgetary sanction and adherence to the Rules of Business, such approvals lack legal validity. Cited Case: Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808) (b) Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011 – Rules 15(1), 19(1), and 19(3) Financial Consultation – Prerequisites for Regularization – Sanctioned Posts Required Under the Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, no new posts can be created, nor can financial expenditures be authorized, without consultation and approval from the Finance Department. Rule 19(1) specifically mandates consultation when financial implications are involved. In this case, no such approval was obtained, rendering the claims for regularization unsustainable. Cited Case: Government Of Balochistan v. Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. (2024 SCMR 876) (c) Regularization – No Vested Right – Judicial Overreach The Court reaffirmed that regularization of contractual employees is not a vested right. It is contingent upon statutory or policy backing, budgetary allocations, and institutional needs. Courts cannot assume the role of appointing authorities or direct regularization without adherence to established procedures and approvals. Cited Cases: Vice-Chancellor, Bacha Khan University v. Tanveer Ahmad (2022 PLC (C.S.) 85) Khushal Khan Khattak University v. Jabran Ali Khan (2021 SCMR 977) Vice-Chancellor Agriculture University v. Muhammad Shafiq (2024 PLC (C.S.) 323) (d) Judicial Interference – Separation of Powers The Court emphasized that judicial interference in executive functions, particularly in policy matters like employee regularization, risks disrupting governance and violating the trichotomy of powers. Courts must respect institutional autonomy and refrain from encroaching upon executive prerogatives. Cited Case: Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406) (e) Financial Implications – Budgetary Constraints The regularization of posts carries long-term financial implications. Without proper budgetary provisioning, sanctioned posts, and compliance with financial regulations, courts cannot compel the government to create posts or allocate funds through supplementary grants. Disposition: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Lahore High Court's impugned order. It ruled that the directions issued by the High Court for regularization and supplementary financial provisioning were beyond its jurisdiction and contrary to established legal principles.

Summary: Effect of declaration of invalidity against a non-existent law 786Writ Petition 1156097.16322-

Summary: Under clause IX of the Recruitment Policy, 2011, where a joining has not taken place or some candidates have left after joining, only then the next candidate on the merit list/waiting list can be issued letter of agreement. However, if a candidate after joining is dismissed from service under relevant law, the next candidate on the merit list cannot be appointed but the said seat has to be filled through fresh recruitment process. 791Educational Institution 1379/23 Punjab Group of Colleges through Sohail Afzal Vs Province of Punjab etc. Mr. Justice Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi 16- 12- 2024 2024 LHC 6083 2025 CLC 928 (Lahore)

Summary: Petitioner applied for the post of Trade and Investment Officer at Pakistan Trade Missions abroad. He qualified written test and was called for interview. Despite being called for an interview, alleges that his interview has not been taken. (a) Service Law – Appointment to Trade and Investment Officer (TIO) – Eligibility Criteria: ---- Policy Guidelines for Selection, Appointment and Posting of Trade and Investment Officers (BS-18 to BS-20) – Paragraph 1(d) – Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) – Held, an officer applying for appointment as a Trade and Investment Officer (TIO) in Pakistan’s Trade Missions Abroad must have complete PERs for the last five years with a minimum average of “very good.” – Any deficiency in PERs disqualifies a candidate from selection. (b) PERs – Validity and Rectification – Role of Reporting and Countersigning Officers: ---- Guide to Performance Evaluation (PER Guide) – Paragraphs 2.32, 2.44, 3.10(iii) – Held, a PER recorded for a period less than three months is irregular and must be removed from the character roll dossiers per Paragraph 2.32 of the PER Guide. – If an officer has worked under multiple reporting officers in a year, the countersigning officer may obtain separate reports from each and exercise discretion in deciding which to accept under Paragraph 2.44 of the PER Guide. – However, PER remarks once recorded cannot be altered, and any change in evaluation must be incorporated in the next year’s report under Paragraph 3.10(iii) of the PER Guide. (c) Judicial Review – Courts' Limited Role in PER-Related Disputes: ---- Constitution of Pakistan – Article 212 – Jurisdiction of Service Tribunals – Held, issues relating to the recording, validity, and expunction of adverse remarks in PERs fall within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunals, and constitutional courts cannot interfere in such matters. – The petitioner may seek expunction of adverse remarks through the procedure provided in the PER Guide. (d) Discretion of Countersigning Officer – Validity of PERs: ---- Guide to Performance Evaluation (PER Guide) – Paragraph 2.44 – Held, a countersigning officer must base their evaluation on the reporting officers’ assessments. – Where two different reporting officers evaluate an officer for different periods, the countersigning officer may agree with either evaluation. – In the present case, the countersigning officer revised the petitioner’s grading from “outstanding” to “average” after considering a newly recorded PER, which was lawfully within his discretion. (e) Procedural Fairness in Service Matters – No Personal Bias Established: ---- Held, the petitioner alleged personal bias and unfair treatment by the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, but failed to establish any mala fide intent or violation of law. – The Secretary was a member of the Interview Board and identified an irregularity in the petitioner’s PER, which led to its review – The Court found no procedural irregularity or discriminatory treatment. (f) Judicial Direction – Review Application Dismissed: ---- Held, the petitioner submitted to the Court’s order requiring the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce to record his PER but later challenged the order only after an adverse PER was issued. – Since the petitioner failed to show an error apparent on the face of the order, the review application was dismissed. ----Disposition: ---- Writ petition dismissed – Review application dismissed – Petitioner directed to seek expunction of adverse remarks through proper administrative channels.

Summary: (On appeal from an Order dated 29.11.2021, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad on Misc. Petition No. 1893 of 2018 moved in Appeals Nos. 1879 to 1883 (R) CS of 2013). Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12 (2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212 (3)---Order of Service Tribunal---Plea of fraud, misrepresentation or lack of jurisdiction---Petitioner/Pakistan Railways was aggrieved of dismissal of its application to set aside order passed by Service Tribunal directing the petitioner/Pakistan Railways to upgrade post of respondent/employee---Validity---All sweeping grounds were alien to the provision of Section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside any judgment and decree, wherein applicant/person is obligated to characteristically and judiciously point out act of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction, if any---Elementary constituents were missing from the application filed by petitioner/Pakistan Railways before Federal Service Tribunal, which was rightly dismissed---Service Tribunal exercises exclusive jurisdiction as a fact finding forum in respect of matters relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servants and for the matters connected there with or ancillary thereto---Exclusive appellate jurisdiction is exercised by Service Tribunal in the cases of civil servants to vet and examine departmental orders passed against civil servants---Civil servants may approach Tribunal against an adverse order within the specified limitation period for filing an appeal, where either an order is passed on his departmental appeal, or if departmental appeal is not decided within the prescribed period of time, the aggrieved civil servant may approach and file appeal before Service Tribunal within the statutory period---Matter reaches Service Tribunal against adverse orders but after it has been filtered through departmental hierarchy or chain of command---Onerous duty of service Tribunal, as an appellate forum, is to determine whether departmental action taken against civil servant, complies with the law or not---Filing application under section 12(2), C.P.C. with the prayer to dismiss an application moved for implementation of a judgment of Federal Service Tribunal was no solution after the judgment had attained finality up to Supreme Court---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Federal Service Tribunal as the same was based on correct exposition of law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Umer Sharif, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (via video link from Lahore). Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th December, 2024.