Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) – Art. 199 Writ jurisdiction—Appointments of Vice-Chancellors—Legality of re-advertisement—Scope—Petitioners challenged the decision of the Provincial Government to re-advertise the positions of Vice-Chancellors for 19 public sector universities in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—Held, the appointment process was duly initiated by the elected government and was at an advanced stage when the caretaker government substituted members of the Academic Search Committee following resignations—The caretaker government’s role in continuing an already initiated process did not amount to a policy decision in contravention of S. 230 of the Elections Act, 2017—The Provincial Government’s decision to scrap the entire process and re-advertise the positions was legally unsustainable—Petition allowed—Re-advertisement struck down. (b) Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017) – S. 230 Powers of caretaker government—Scope—Caretaker governments are restricted from making major policy decisions but may continue routine government functions—Held, substituting resigned members of the Academic Search Committee was an administrative necessity and did not constitute a policy decision—Objection that the caretaker government lacked authority to proceed with the appointments was misplaced—Reliance placed on Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 1205. (c) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act (X of 2012) – S. 12 Appointment of Vice-Chancellors—Procedure—Held, the entire appointment process had been conducted in accordance with S. 12 of the Act of 2012—Academic Search Committee had completed its recommendations, and the caretaker government had only facilitated an ongoing process—Government was obligated to consider the recommended candidates and could not arbitrarily scrap the process without legal justification—Respondents directed to place the recommendations before the Chief Minister for final approval. Cited Cases: • Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 1205 • Munawar Hassan v. Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan 2017 PLC (C.S.) 81 • Abdul Aziz v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2015 PLC (C.S.) 958 • Government of Balochistan v. Abdul Rauf PLD 2021 SC 313 Disposition: Petition allowed—Re-advertisement of Vice-Chancellor positions struck down—Government directed to proceed with existing recommendations in accordance with the law.

Summary: Scope of quo-qarranto jurisdiction in cases of direct and unadvertised appointments 1008Misc. Writ 1913/20 Ms Phipsons Company Pvt Limited Vs Zahid Moyeen etc Mr. Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh 11- 07- 2024 2024 LHC 3422 PLJ 2024 Lahore 652

Summary: a) Civil Service—Recruitment and Eligibility ----AJ&K Public Service Commission—Elementary & Secondary Education (Teaching Cadre Service) Rules, 2016—Qualification criteria—Scope of judicial review. Appellant, holding M.A. (Education), M.A. (Statistics) and M.Ed., applied for the post of Secondary School Teacher (Female), BS-16, under the Public Service Commission (PSC). Her candidature was rejected on the ground that M.Sc. (Statistics) did not fall within the prescribed “relevant subjects” under the Rules. The High Court dismissed her writ petition. Held, that while the question whether M.Sc. (Statistics) qualifies as a “social science” may arise in another case, the Rules expressly recognize M.Ed. and Master’s Degree in Education as acceptable alternatives for eligibility. Since the appellant possessed a valid M.Ed. degree issued by a Higher Education Commission (HEC)-recognized university, she was otherwise qualified for the post. The PSC was, therefore, directed to evaluate her eligibility comprehensively, considering all qualifications and to proceed with the selection process accordingly. (b) Pleadings—Objection not raised in written statement—Effect ----AJ&K Public Service Commission—Failure to plead objection at trial—Consequences. PSC’s later contention that appellant had not attached her M.Ed. degree at the time of submission was not tenable as no such objection had been specifically raised in its written statement before the High Court. Objection not pleaded at the proper stage cannot subsequently be entertained or relied upon to defeat a valid claim. (c) Intervention—Impleadment of third parties ----Civil Procedure—Application for impleadment—Maintainability. Intervener objected only to the relevancy of the appellant’s M.Sc. (Statistics) degree and raised no dispute regarding her other qualifications. Since the Court refrained from deciding the “Statistics degree” question and confined relief to M.Ed. qualification, impleadment was found unnecessary; application dismissed. Disposition: Appeal accepted; judgment of the High Court set aside; Public Service Commission directed to consider appellant for appointment if otherwise qualified under the Rules. Cited Provisions: Azad Jammu & Kashmir Elementary and Secondary Education Department (Teaching Cadre Service) Rules, 2016. Cited Authority: Higher Education Commission Notification dated 03-02-2015 (regarding classification of Social Sciences).

Summary: (Son Quota)

Summary: (Deceased Quota)

Summary: (Appointment)

Summary: (Son Quota)

Summary: Background: A plaintiff filed a suit seeking an injunctive order to suspend his retirement notification dated February 28, 2024, which mandated his retirement on May 28, 2024. An ad-interim order was granted on May 27, 2024, suspending the retirement notification just one day before the retirement date. The plaintiff argued that his actual date of birth is May 29, 1967, rather than May 29, 1964, and presented a salary slip from July 2016 as evidence. He contended that the change in his date of birth was made in February 2024 without his knowledge. -----Issues: 1- Prima Facie Case: Does the plaintiff have sufficient evidence to support the suspension of his retirement notification? 2- Change in Date of Birth: Was the change in the plaintiff’s date of birth in the service records justified and made within the permissible time frame? 3- Injunctive Relief: Is the plaintiff entitled to the injunctive relief sought? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Prima Facie Case: The Court found that the plaintiff did not provide any salary slips between July 2016 and January 2024 to substantiate his claim that he became aware of the change in his date of birth only in February 2024. The lack of evidence to support this assertion weakened his prima facie case. ---Change in Date of Birth: According to established law, any change in an employee's date of birth must be made within the first two years of employment. The plaintiff was aware of the alleged change in February 2024 but did not take immediate action until one day before his retirement, indicating a lack of due diligence. The plaintiff’s claim that his date of birth is May 29, 1967, was also questionable because, if accepted, it would imply he was only 19 years old with a Master of Arts degree at the time of his appointment in 1986, an exceptional case requiring convincing evidence. ---Injunctive Relief: The Court noted that both the Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently disapproved of employees seeking to change their date of birth close to their retirement for the purpose of extending their service. The Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, specifically Rule 12-A, restrict such changes to within two years of joining service. Based on the above, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case, the balance of convenience did not lie in his favor, and he had not demonstrated that he would suffer irreparable loss. Consequently, the application for injunctive relief was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents Khalil Ahmed Siddiqui v. Pakistan through Secretary Interior Division, Government of Pakistan and 05 others (2003 PLC (CS) 696) Ahmed Khan Dehpal v. Government of Balochistan and others (2013 SCMR 759) Federal Board of Intermediate v. Abeer Masood (2020 SCMR 316) ----Quote: Correction of age at the verge of retirement. No prima facie case for injunction is made out

Summary: Background: Two petitions were filed challenging the actions and decisions of the Sindh High Court's administrative authorities concerning the "son quota" policy for appointing children of deceased, retired, and serving employees of the District and Subordinate Courts in Sindh. The petitions questioned the legality and implementation of the policy, as well as the procedural compliance of the Registrar in executing court orders. A larger bench was constituted to review these issues based on a previous Division Bench's order. ----Issues: 1- Legality and Enforceability of the "Son Quota" Policy: Whether the "son quota" policy for appointing children of deceased, retired, and serving employees has statutory backing and is legally enforceable. 2- Contempt of Court: Whether the non-compliance of court orders by administrative authorities, specifically the Registrar, amounted to contempt of court. 3- Adverse Remarks and Show-Cause Notices: Whether the adverse remarks and show-cause notices issued to the Registrar should be upheld or expunged. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Legality and Enforceability of the "Son Quota" Policy: The Court determined that the "son quota" policy had been established through various administrative orders and directives issued by the Chief Justice and the Administration Committee of the High Court of Sindh. These directives were intended to be followed by all District and Sessions Judges in Sindh. The policy is supported by Rule 4 of the Sindh Judicial Staff Services Rules, 1992, which empowers the High Court to issue instructions for appointments. The Court noted that the Division Bench's finding that there was no statutory backing for the "son quota" policy was incorrect, as the policy was supported by the Administration Committee's decisions and the Sindh Judicial Staff Services Rules. ---Contempt of Court: The larger bench found that the adverse remarks and the show-cause notice issued to the Registrar, based on perceived non-compliance with the court's orders, were beyond the scope of the legal issues pending before the Division Bench. The explanation and reply submitted by the Registrar were accepted, and the show-cause notice was discharged. ---Expunging Adverse Remarks: The Court expunged the adverse remarks and directions contained in Paragraph 11 of the order dated May 21, 2024, considering them to be outside the scope of the issues being adjudicated. The observations regarding disciplinary proceedings were suspended, and it was noted that such administrative matters should be referred to the Chief Justice for appropriate action. The petitions were disposed of with the Court directing that the policy directives for the "son quota" should be followed and that the earlier adverse remarks against the Registrar should not be treated as part of the proceedings. -----Citations/Precedents: MULTILINE ASSOCIATES v. ARDESHIR COWASJEE [1995 SCMR 362 / PLD 1995 SC 423] GUL TAIZ KHAN MARWAT v. THE REGISTRAR, PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR AND OTHERS [PLD 2021 SUPREME COURT 391]

Summary: (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 ----Art. 44 & Art. 49---Constitutional petition---Quota for initial recruitment---Non-advertisement of direct recruitment posts---Petitioner, appointed on ad hoc basis as Section Officer BPS-17 after a competitive process under the 50% quota for direct recruitment, continued serving without formal induction---Despite admission by respondents in prior compliance report and written statement that two vacant posts existed under the direct quota, respondents failed to advertise them and instead initiated promotional proceedings, violating rules and depriving eligible state subjects of fair opportunity---Held, such conduct was contrary to the departmental recruitment rules and constitutional guarantee of equality in public service for state subjects---Writ petition was held maintainable and allowed. **(b) Service Law---Departmental recruitment rules---Initial recruitment versus promotion quota---Enforceability---Departmental rules clearly provided for 50% of posts of Section Officer BPS-17 to be filled by initial recruitment and remaining 50% by promotion---Promotion quota had already been exhausted, yet respondents attempted to fill remaining direct quota posts through promotion---Such action was declared illegal and arbitrary---Court observed that direct recruitment process must be fair, transparent, and merit-based, and eligible candidates must not be deprived of their right to apply. **(c) Administrative Law---Transparency in recruitment---Unjustified delay and secrecy---Respondents failed to initiate the recruitment process despite clear acknowledgment of vacant direct quota posts and directions from competent authorities---Secretive convening of Selection Board meetings and prolonged inaction created suspicion and amounted to abuse of authority and denial of fair process---Court held that admitted availability of posts cannot be bypassed or manipulated through internal promotions. **(d) Service Law---Ad hoc appointment---Right to salary and continuity---Petitioner, though appointed on ad hoc basis, had not been relieved by any competent order and continued to serve---Respondents failed to issue permanent appointment order or relieve him from duties---Court held that salary for period of actual service must be paid as per record and petitioner’s service could not be interrupted until permanent induction through lawful process. (e) Disposition Writ petition was accepted. Respondents were directed to (i) advertise the two vacant posts of Section Officer BPS-17 under the 50% direct recruitment quota within one month, (ii) ensure the petitioner is not relieved from service until permanent appointments are made, and (iii) release all outstanding salary to the petitioner in accordance with law. Compliance report to be submitted to the Registrar.