Summary: (a) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)- -S. 140-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Constitutional petition- -Maintainability-Election Tribunal presided by sitting Judge of High Court-Effect-Election Tribunal presided by a sitting Judge of High Court is not High Court but is persona designata-Petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution is maintainable, if order passed by such Judge suffers from jurisdictional error or is patently against the law. Mian Jamal Shah v. The Member, Election Commission, Government of Pakistan, Lahore and others PLD 1966 SC 1; PLD 2008 SC 735 and PLD 2008 SC 779 rel. (b) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 175, 202, 203 & 225-Courts and Tribunals-Scope-Courts can be constituted by the Parliament, however, Constitution does recognize creation of certain tribunals including Election Tribunal under Art. 225 of the Constitution-Constitution specifically recognizes establishment of Election Tribunals as a-forum-for resolution of election disputes under the law by the Parliament-Harmonious interpretation to the provisions of the Constitution is to be made so that no one provision of the Constitution collides with the other-Election Tribunal is not a-Court-as envisaged in Art. 175(3) of the Constitution and is a-Tribunal-created for deciding election disputes. State v. Zia ur Rehman PLD 1973 SC 49; Mehram Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1998 SC 1445; Sami Ullah Baluch and others v. Abdul Karim Nousherwani and others PLD 2018 SC 405; Muhammad Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry v. Mumtaz Ahmad Tarar and others 2016 SCMR 1; Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan and others v. Miss Nasreen Pervez 2009 PLC (C.S.) 650; Messrs Ranyal Textiles through Proprietor/Employer v. Sindh Labour Court No.3, Karachi and 3 others PLD 2010 Kar. 27; Sh. Riaz ul Haq and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2013 SC 501; Imran v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Special Court No.VI, Multan and 2 others PLD 1996 Lah. 542; Reference No.1 of 2020: In the matter of PLD 2021 SC 825; Mahmood Khan Achakzai and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 1997 SC 426; Al-Jehad Trust through Raeesul Mujahideen Habib-ul-Wahab-ul-Khairi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1996 SC 324; Sheikh Abdul Aziz Hamad Al-Gosaibi v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation PLD 1995 Kar. 566 and District Bar Association, Rawalpindi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2015 SC 401 rel. (c) Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 175 (3) & 225-Election Commission of Pakistan and Election Tribunal-Status-Election Commission of Pakistan cannot be regarded as-Executive-but an autonomous constitutional body, which acts as regulator of election matters-Election Commission of Pakistan has been mandated by the Constitution to provide for resolution of election disputes-Election Tribunal is not a-Court-for the purposes of Art. 175(3) of the Constitution, but is a-Tribunal-as has been designated in Art. 225 of the Constitution. Bneazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan 1991 MLD 2622; Mian Jamal Shah v. The Member, Election Commission, Government of Pakistan, Lahore and others PLD 1966 SC 1 and Imran v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Special Court No.VI, Multan and 2 others PLD 1996 Lah. 542 rel. (d) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)- -S. 151-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199-Constitutional petition- -Maintainability-Transfer of election petition from one Election Tribunal to another-Principle-If any party is aggrieved of a decision of Election Commission of Pakistan by transfer of election petition from one Tribunal to another, such decision is always subject to challenge by way of judicial review before High Court-If yardsticks for challenging such actions of Election Commission of Pakistan are fulfilled, High Court, in appropriate cases, can strike down the same-It is a must for the Election Commission of Pakistan to give reasons for transfer. District Bar Association, Rawalpindi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2015 SC 401 rel. (e) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017)- -Ss. 140 & 151 [as amended by Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 2024]-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10A & 199-Constitutional petition-Maintainability-Election Tribunal-Appointment of retired Judges of High Courts-Transfer of election petitions-Petitioner was a returned candidate and his election was assailed by respondent in election petition-During pendency of election petition, on application filed by respondent, election petition was transferred from one Tribunal to the other-Petitioner assailed such order of transferas as well as appointment of retired Judges of High Courts as Election Tribunal by the Election Commission of Pakistan-Validity-Proper process was that a request should have been made in such regard to Presiding Officer for recusal from the case and the rest was left to the conscious of Judge, but since Presiding Officer was not Judge of High Court, normal principles was not applicable and "bias" might be a ground-Burden of proof of-bias-was heavy and mere wrong application of law and not granting adjournments or rejection of applications or making certain observations in the Court, was not a ground for-bias-Election Commission of Pakistan proceeded with transfer application in haste without providing opportunity of filing affidavits and counter-affidavits/replies to allegation of-bias-or misapplication of law-Proper opportunity should have been granted to petitioner and failure on the part of Election Commission of Pakistan to grant such opportunity was in violation of Art. 10A of the Constitution-Election Commission of Pakistan is not a-judicial forum-nor even purely Executive; it is a Constitutional body, which has some quasi-judicial powers to perform while deciding certain issues-Power of transfer is supervisory and administrative in nature and has to be exercised after providing opportunity to everyone concerned-There was nothing on record to show that the same was done and in one of the writ petitions while allowing the transfer application even merits were touched and finding on the same was rendered, which was not the mandate of Election Commission of Pakistan-High Court found it appropriate for Election Commission of Pakistan to revisit the matter as it had authority and mandate to decide transfer application under S. 151 of Elections Act, 2017 and could also transfer petitions suo moto but had to give reasons for the same-High Court set aside transfer order passed by Election Commission of Pakistan as in application filed for transfer, all parties were to be heard but this was not done-High Court remanded transfer application to Election Commission of Pakistan for decision afresh. Pakistan Fisheries Limited, Karachi and others v. United Bank Limited PLD 1993 SC 109; Messrs Tri-Star Polyester Limited and others v. Citi Bank 2001 SCMR 410; Ehsan Ellahi v. Muhammad Arif 2001 SCMR 416; State and others v. Shereen Shah and others PLD 2023 SC 907; Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry v. President of Pakistan and others PLD 2010 SC 61; Election Commission of Pakistan and others v. Javaid Hashmi and others PLD 1989 SC 396; Workers Party Pakistan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2012 SC 681; Aftab Shahban Mirani and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others PLD 2008 SC 779; Let. Gen. Salahuddin Tirmizi v. Election Commission of Pakistan and others PLD 2008 SC 735; Ali Asjad Malhi v. Syed Nosheen Iftikhar PLD 2023 SC 1; Aurangzeb Khan v. Election Commission of Pakistan and others PLD 2010 SC 34; Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional Sessions Judge 1994 SCMR 1299; Tariq Transport Company v. Sargodha Bhera Bus Service and others PLD 1958 SC 437; Lahore Development Authority Ltd. v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others 2015 SCMR 1739; Federation of Pakistan v. Shaukat Ali Rana PLD 1999 SC 1026; Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan 1991 MLD 2622; East and West Steamship v. Pakistan PLD 1958 SC 41; Jibendra Kishore Achharyya Chowdhry v. The Province of Pakistan PLD 1957 SC 9; Govindan Sellappah Naar Kodakan Pillai v. Punch Banda Mundanayake and others PLD 1953 Privy Council 51; Mrs. Shaila Joseph v. Chairman, Hazara Hill Tract Improvement Trust, Abbotabad and 3 others 1990 MLD 807; Peoples University of Medical and Health Sciences for Women through Registrar and 4 others v. Pakistan Ministry of Health Services, Regulation and Coordination through Secretary and 13 others PLD 2021 Sindh 256; Mian Jamal Shah v. The Member, Election Commission, Government of Pakistan, Lahore and others PLD 1966 SC 1; M.H. Khondkar v. The State PLD 1966 SC 140; Muhammad Azam Khan Swati v. The State and another 2023 PCr.LJ 350 and Liteky v. United States 510 U.S. 540 (1994) ref. Waqas Mir, Ali Hassan Gillani, Kamran Haider Ali for Private Respondents. Saad Hassan for ECP with M. Arshad, D.G. (Law), Khurram Shehzad, ADG (Law) and Falak Sher, Legal Consultant. Munawwar Iqbal Duggal, Additional Attorney General with Syed Ahsan Raza Kazmi, Deputy Attorney General.

Summary: (Appeal against the judgment dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P. No. 3377-P of 2023). (a) State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973--- ----Regln. 20---Employee of State Life Insurance Corporation---Change in date of birth sought close to retirement---Permissibility---It is obligatory for any employee to intimate his correct date of birth and to produce confirmatory documentary evidence at the time when the first entry is made in the service record which cannot be altered, except in the case of a clerical error, because the date of birth once recorded at the time of joining service is deemed to be final and thereafter no alteration in the date of birth is permissible---It is an admitted position that in the original National Identity Card (CNIC), the year of birth of the respondent (employee) was 1964, while in the CNIC prepared on 12.11.2002, again his date of birth was 22.09.1964---Even in his Passport his date of birth was 22.09.1964---However, the respondent was issued his new CNIC on 03.03.2023, wherein his date of birth was shown as 22.09.1966---Employer-Corporation had issued a circular, wherein it was categorically mentioned that certain employees are placing a representation for the correction in the date of birth after having completed a number of years of service, therefore, it was announced by means of the aforesaid circular that no change in the date of birth will be made if it is not requested within 2 years of the date of initial appointment---Respondent himself relied upon this circular---Record reflects that the respondent first applied for the correction of his date of birth in the official record vide application dated 17.03.2023 on the basis of his matriculation certificate issued in 1983, but no justification was shown in the application as to why he himself mentioned his date of birth as 22.09.1964 when he was appointed by the petitioner's company---It is also incomprehensible that even when he applied for a CNIC in 2002, why at that time the correction was not applied, and even in his passport, issued in 2010, he maintained the same date of birth---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and writ petition filed by the respondent in the High Court was dismissed. Manzar Zahoor v. Lyari Development Authority and another 2022 SCMR 1305 = 2022 PLC (C.S) 1128 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Change in date of birth sought by an employee of a Government Corporation---Constitutional petition filed by employee before the High Court---Maintainability---Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is envisioned predominantly for affording an express remedy where the unlawfulness and impropriety of the action of an executive or other governmental authority could be substantiated without any inquiry---Expression "adequate remedy" signifies an effectual, accessible, advantageous and expeditious remedy---In the case in hand, the remedy of filing civil suit was an appropriate and alternate remedy as remedium juris which was more convenient, beneficial, and effective---Controverted ` questions of fact, adjudication on which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of parties, can be determined only by the courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matter, and on such ground the constitutional petition filed by the employee was incompetent. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others v. Shah Faisal Wahab and others 2023 SCMR 1642; Special Secretary-II (Law and Order), Home and Tribal Affairs Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others v. Fayyaz Dawar 2023 SCMR 1442 and State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. PLD 1983 SC 280 ref. Malik Jawwad Khalid, Advocate Supreme Court and Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Noor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (through video link at Peshawar). Date of hearing: 16th September, 2024.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 31.01.2023, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in I.C.A. No.514 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.2042 of 2020). (a) Civil service--- ----Contract employees---Regularization in service---Scope---Regularization of a contractual employee constitutes a fresh appointment into the stream of regular appointments in civil services. Province of Punjab through Secretary Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others 2021 SCMR 767 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 90, 91 & 99---Executive authority of the Federation, exercise of---Scope---Article 90 of the Constitution provides that the executive authority of the Federation shall be exercised in the name of the President by the Federal Government, which includes the Prime Minister and Federal Ministers but the said authority has to be exercised subject to the Constitution---It means that whenever the authority is exercised, it has to be within the limits prescribed by the Constitution---Neither the Prime Minister nor the members of the Federal Cabinet are permitted to perform their functions beyond the legal provisions i.e. the Constitution, statutory law, and the rules. (c) Civil service--- ----Contract employees---Regularization of posts in BS-16 and above---Cabinet Sub-Committee, powers of---Scope---Rules of Business, 1973, were duly framed to conduct the business of the Federal Government---Under these rules, although there is a concept of Cabinet Sub-Committees on different subjects, there is no provision for the intervention of a Cabinet Sub-Committee in governing the terms and conditions of service of employees---However, the Cabinet Sub-Committee can recommend reforms in the service structure, which can be approved by the Cabinet in accordance with the law and the Constitution---As, the Cabinet Sub-Committee lacks the authority to recommend the regularization of posts in BS-16 and above, therefore, any recommendation by the Cabinet Sub-Committee to regularize appointments in BS-16 and above is void ab initio and without any lawful authority. (d) Void order--- ----Any action that is void ab initio and without lawful authority cannot be protected under the doctrine of a 'past and closed transaction'. (e) Civil service--- ----Contract employees---Regularization in service---Factors to be considered by an employer/institution opting for regularization of its contract employees---Any institution opting for regularization of its employees must be either mandated by law or must carry out regularization through a well-thought-out policy of the institution concerned laying down the criteria and the process for regularization; performance evaluation of the contractual employee must be assessed to determine if the employee meets the standards required for a regular position; there must be availability of positions that match the skills and experience of the contractual employee; the budgetary considerations and financial implication of a regular employee must be weighed and considered---There must be a fair assessment of the employee's qualifications, performance and merit, so as to ensure only competent and committed employees are granted permanent employment status. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad and another v. Fazal-e-Subhan and others PLD 2024 SC 515; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar and others v. Sher Aman and others 2022 SCMR 406 and Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others 2018 SCMR 1181 ref. (f) Employment--- ----Appointments and promotions in public sector organizations---Transparency, merit and open competition, significance of---Appointments in the public sector based on corruption, nepotism, favoritism, lack of due process, and misuse of authority have long been a significant issue in our society---These practices undermine the principles of fairness and equality, eroding public trust in governmental institutions---When positions are filled not on merit but through personal connections or corrupt practices, it not only deprives deserving candidates of opportunities but also weakens the overall efficiency and integrity of the public sector---Upholding the values of transparency, merit, and open competition in public sector employment is essential for fostering a system where the most qualified individuals serve, ensuring that public resources are utilized effectively and justly for the benefit of all---Without adherence to these principles, the public sector risks becoming a tool for the powerful rather than a service for the people, perpetuating cycles of inequality and inefficiency---Therefore, it is imperative that the recruitment and promotion processes in the public sector be conducted with the highest standards of fairness and accountability, free from any undue influence or bias. Hafiz S.A.Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Mrs. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.949 and 1028 of 2023). Tariq Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1025 of 2023). Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1032 of 2023) Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1033 of 2023). Dr. G. M. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1034 of 2023). S.A. Mahmood Khan Sadozai, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2-3 (in C.P. No.949 of 2023). Zubair Hussain Jarral, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.1025 and 1134 of 2023). Nemo for Respondents (in other cases). Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom, Additional Attorney General, Hammad Nazar, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistani and HRD Muhammad Abdullah, A.D. Legal FPSC for the Federation. Date of hearing: 8th July, 2024.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 25 & 27-Civil service-Appointment-Quota reserved for son of retired employee-Constitutionality-Constitution prohibits discrimination as stated in Article 25 and further stipulates and entrenches the principle in respect of service of Pakistan in Article 27- -In preferring the children of a government servant or reserving seats for them offends the Constitution-Same also detracts from a merit based system of employment-Taxpayers hard earned monies pay for the salaries, benefits and pensions of government servants-People's interest lies in having the best person for the job, and not to suffer at the hands of those who secure employment on the basis of a filial relationship.

Summary: Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972--- Recruitment process for a certain post ? It is vested domain of Selection Board/ Committee to examine the qualification and the eligibility criteria as well as fitness of a candidate. The Court is not the substitute forum of a Selection Board / Committee as such it cannot direct an appointing authority to issue appointment letter in favour of a candidate and any such intrusion would amount to committing judicial overreach which is unwarranted by law. 970Writ Petition- Land- Proprietary rights 585-15 MALIK AMANAT RASUL VS FED. OF PAKISTAN ETC. Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 11- 09- 2024 2024 LHC 5274 2025 PLC (CS) 262 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: (Against the Judgment dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in the Appeal No.8(L) of 2020). (a) Civil service--- ----Pension---Claim for pensionary benefits---Limitation---Pension constitutes a recurring cause of action---Claims constituting payment of lawful dues constitute a recurring cause of action and delay, if any, would not automatically vitiate a claim. Abdul Jabbar v. Pakistan Railways 2018 PLC (C.S.) 375; Umar Baz Khan v. Jehanzeb PLD 2013 SC 268; M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others (1995) 5 SCC 628 and Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 ref. (b) Civil Service Regulations (CSR)--- ----Art. 371-A(ii)---Pensionary benefits, calculation of---Inclusion of contractual period for calculation of pensionary benefits---Contractual period (of less than 5 years),being temporary service, is recognized by Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) for inclusion in the calculation of pension provided that the contractual period is followed by regularization or confirmation without any gap or interruption, in accordance with clause (ii) of Article 371-A of the CSR---Clause (ii) of Article 371-A of the CSR provides for situations where a government servant has rendered less than five years of continuous temporary or officiating service---In such instances, the period of service shall also be counted towards pension or gratuity, provided that it is immediately followed by confirmation/regularization as a permanent employee---In the present case, since temporary service (contract period) of respondent (employee) was 4 _ years therefore clause (ii) of Article 371-A was applicable---Record reveals that the respondent's service from his contractual appointment to regularization and retirement was continuous and uninterrupted and this had not been disputed by the petitioner (employer)---Therefore, Federal Service Tribunal had rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent---Petition was dismissed and leave was refused. Chairman, Pakistan Railway, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others v. Shah Jehan Shah PLD 2016 SC 534 and Ministry of Finance through Secretary and others v. Syed Afroz Akhtar Rizvi and others 2021 SCMR 1546 ref. Imran Aziz, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Aurangzeb Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (via video link from Lahore). Date of hearing: 12th September, 2024.

Summary: Section 3 Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972--- Article 31 & 35 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. A widow who was inducted on contract employment due to death of her husband during service, was terminated from service due to contracting second marriage---- held that marriage or re-marriage is a religious and fundamental right of a woman and any step /action taken in contravention of such right would be illegal, unlawful and ultra vires. A civil servant passed away during his service upon which his widow was appointed as Naib Qasid. But on her re-marriage, her services were terminated under Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 issued by the Establishment Division whereby on remarriage of a widow the contract of employment provided to her would be terminated from the date of her remarriage. The said Memorandum dated 15.12.2015 had already been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Thus no immunity/ protection is attached to such illegal order of an authority. Intra Court Appeal allowed. 974Writ Petition- Family- Guardianship 452-24 IRFAN ARSHAD VS MST. ZAINAB NOOR ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 10- 09- 2024 2024 LHC 5971 2025 MLD 401 [Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute between an employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIA) and the airline regarding the non-payment of post-retirement benefits, including provident fund, gratuity, pension, and damages. The employee, after serving PIA for over 37 years, sought early retirement but faced delays in receiving his retirement benefits due to an inquiry initiated by PIA alleging abuse of power and wrongful inductions. The employee filed a suit seeking recovery of his retirement benefits and damages for the mental agony caused by the delay. The Civil Court ruled in favor of the employee, awarding him retirement benefits and damages, which PIA subsequently challenged in this appeal. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Civil Court's judgment in favor of the respondent for recovery of post-retirement benefits and damages was justified. ----2- Whether the inquiry initiated against the respondent justified the withholding of his retirement benefits. ----3- Whether the award of Rs. 3 million in damages for mental agony and delay in payment was appropriate, given the lack of specific evidence regarding the loss suffered. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court upheld the Civil Court’s judgment, concluding that the respondent was entitled to post-retirement benefits, and the withholding of these benefits by PIA was unlawful. The inquiry against the respondent was found to be unjustified, as there was no evidence proving his involvement in any wrongdoing. It was also established that PIA could not conduct an inquiry against a retired employee under the terms of employment. Regarding the damages, the Court ruled that general damages for mental agony and suffering could be granted even in the absence of specific evidence. The awarded sum of Rs. 3 million was deemed reasonable, considering the financial and emotional impact on the respondent due to the delay in receiving his benefits. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court further ordered that interest be paid on the damages and the decretal amount from the date of judgment until the final payment. Additionally, the respondent was awarded litigation costs of Rs. 500,000. -----Citations/Precedents: A. Ismailjee & Sons Ltd. Vs. Pakistan (PLD 1986 SC 499) Miss Irshad Jehan vs. P.N.S.C (1999 CLC 192) Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs. Syed Ali Raza Rizvi (1996 CLC 627) Abdul Qadir vs. S. K. Abbas Hussain (PLD 1997 Karachi 566) M/s Emirates Airline vs. Daoud Shami (PLD 2003 Lahore 358) Mrs. Zahra Zaidi vs. M. Anwar Khan Ghauri (2004 CLC 223) Muhammad Sharif vs. Nawab Din (PLD 1957 (W.P) Lahore 283) Abdul Majeed Khan vs. Tawseen Abdul Haleem (2012 PLC (C.S) 574) Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs. Sh. Nawab Din (2003 CLC 991) Gohar Ali vs. M/s Hoechst Pakistan Limited (PLJ 2009 SC 303) Habib Bank Limited vs. Mehboob Rabbani (2023 SCMR 1189) Sufi Muhammad Ishaque vs. The Metropolitan Corporation Lahore (PLD 1996 SC 737)

Summary: Background: The petitioner was initially employed as an Assistant Manager Technical (BPS-17) in a federal autonomous body and was transferred on deputation to the Provincial Government. Over the years, the petitioner served in various higher posts within the Provincial Government and subsequently sought absorption into the Provincial Management Service (PMS). The petitioner filed a writ petition, which directed the Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to decide on the absorption request according to the law. The Chief Minister, however, denied the request through the impugned order dated 13.08.2024. The petitioner contested this decision and sought absorption into the PMS. -----Issues: ---1- Whether the petitioner, an employee of a federal autonomous body, could be absorbed into the Provincial Management Service under the Provincial Management Service Rules, 2007. ---2- Whether the petitioner's prolonged deputation violated the Provincial Government's deputation policy. ---3- Whether there was any legal precedent or provision that entitled the petitioner to absorption in the PMS. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, holding that: The petitioner, as an employee of a federal autonomous body, was not eligible for absorption into the PMS under Rule 4(2) of the PMS Rules, 2007. The deputation policy allowed a maximum of five years on deputation, and the petitioner had exceeded this period. The petitioner's prolonged deputation was unprecedented and unauthorized by law. The court relied on various precedents from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which established that deputationists have no vested right to remain on deputation or to seek absorption. The borrowing department has the discretion to repatriate the deputationist at any time, and there is no legal basis for absorbing a federal employee into provincial services. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim, and the writ petition was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: "Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others" (2013 SCMR 1752) "Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others vs. Province of Sindh and others" (2015 SCMR 456) "Ghansham Das vs. Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" (2024 SCMR 188) "Sudhir Ahmed and others vs. The Speaker and Assembly and others" (2017 SCMR 2051) "Masood Abbas Rizvi vs. Federation of Pakistan and others" (2014 SCMR 799) "Dr. Shafi ur Rehman Afridi vs. C.D.A Islamabad through Chairman and others" (2010 SCMR 378) "Ghulam Nabi Sheikh and another vs. Secretary Establishment Division Government of Pakistan and another" (2023 PLC (C.S) 32) "Hamid Nasrullah Rana vs. Chief Commissioner, Islamabad ICT and others" (2022 PLC (C.S) 73)

Summary: (a) Constitutional Petition – Public Service Commission – Female Quota Allocation: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission Regulations, 2003, R.24(a) & 33 – Appointment of Female Candidate in General Quota – Interpretation of Quota Policy – Scope ----Public Service Commission’s discretion in allocating candidates to merit-based and reserved quota positions----Petitioner challenged the selection of respondent, a female candidate, under the general quota instead of the female quota, arguing that she was initially shortlisted under the relaxed threshold for female candidates and should have been appointed under the female quota instead of displacing a general quota seat.----Held, Public Service Commission has the authority to determine candidate placement after interviews based on overall merit rankings and quota allocations.----Instructions from the Establishment Department clearly provide that the 10% female quota is in addition to their participation in open merit, meaning women who qualify on open merit or zonal quotas should be accommodated there first, allowing the female quota to benefit additional candidates.----If a female candidate qualifies for a general quota position, her selection should be counted under general merit, and the reserved female quota should be used to accommodate another female candidate who otherwise would not have qualified.----The commission's decision to place the respondent in the general quota and allow the next-ranking female candidate to avail the female quota was in line with the spirit of gender representation policies and aimed at maximizing opportunities for women in public service. ----Cited Case Law: • Maxwell on The Interpretation of Statutes – Twelfth Edition by P. St. J. Langan – A statute must be interpreted to uphold its spirit and intended purpose. • The principle that legislative instruments should be interpreted purposively to fulfill their objectives rather than being reduced to redundancy. (b) Recruitment Process – Shortlisting vs. Final Selection: ----Public Service Commission Examination – Shortlisting vs. Placement of Candidates – Legal Distinction----Held, shortlisting criteria under Regulation 24(a) applies only for calling candidates for interviews and does not determine final selection placement.----A candidate initially shortlisted under a reserved quota can still be placed under open merit or zonal quotas if their final merit ranking allows it.----Public Service Commission acted within its regulatory powers under Rule 33 by allocating candidates after the interview process in a manner that best served the policy objectives of gender inclusion and zonal representation. ----Disposition: Petition dismissed for lack of merit. Commission’s decision upheld as compliant with quota policy and merit principles. Placement of respondent in the general quota of Zone-IV was found lawful and justified.