Summary: (a) Service Law: --- Retrospective application of amended rules or policies––Effect on vested rights–– Where a candidate has secured the top merit position under the rules or policy prevailing at the relevant time, subsequent amendments to the rules or policies cannot operate retrospectively to deprive the candidate of their vested rights––In the present case, the respondent, having topped the merit list based on the original policy, could not be displaced by the appellant after a subsequent amendment awarding additional marks for a Gold Medal in any degree of the academic career. (b) Education Law: --- Merit-based selection––Eligibility and additional qualifications–– The awarding of additional marks for a Gold Medal must align with the applicable policy at the time of selection––The appellant, having received a Gold Medal in a degree not specified under the original policy, was ineligible for additional marks––Subsequent changes in policy cannot retroactively alter the selection outcome where a right has already accrued to another candidate. (c) Administrative Law: --- Authority of selection boards and syndicates––Scope of discretion–– The decision of a selection board is authoritative regarding merit determination, provided it aligns with the rules or policies in force––Subsequent amendments or clarifications by the syndicate must not undermine the legal rights already vested in candidates under the earlier rules. (d) Procedural Law: --- Retrospective effect of policy amendments––Legal principles–– Retrospective effect cannot be given to amendments in rules or policies that alter or take away vested rights––The Supreme Court reaffirmed that rules of procedure may operate retrospectively, but substantive changes affecting vested rights must apply prospectively. -----Disposition: Appeal dismissed––Judgment of the High Court upheld––Respondent’s right to appointment based on the original policy affirmed––No order as to costs.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: S. 121 Guardian & Ward Act, 1890... guardian judge is empowered to make interlocatory orders for production of minor and interim protection of his person and his property.Temporary custody being interim in nature would be subject to decision in main case.

Summary: The judgment pertains to a case involving the Dow University of Health Sciences and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) regarding the recognition and derecognition of the university's dental college. The judgment discusses various issues raised by both parties, including the change in assessment criteria, discrepancies in inspection reports, and the authority of the PMDC to derecognize institutions.The judges in the case found that the PMDC had not followed proper procedures and statutory provisions in derecognizing the institution. They emphasized that the PMDC did not consider the institution's response to the inspection report and did not follow the prescribed legal processes for derecognition. The judges also noted that the PMDC lacked the capability to conduct an inspection at that time due to certain administrative circumstances. As a result, the Impugned Notification (notification to withdraw recognition) was set aside, and the case was disposed of with specific directions for the institution and the PMDC.

Summary: Mere qualifying in written examination and interview does not vest a candidate with a fundamental right for appointment enforceable in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court unless the competent authority has approved such selection.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Riffat Shaheen, was a PTC Teacher appointed on 04.10.1985, residing in government accommodation with her husband, who was an Assistant Director in KPK TEVTA.Upon her husband's retirement on 01.04.2017, the government issued a vacation notice for the accommodation, leading Shaheen to seek its transfer in her name under the KPK Residential Accommodation at Peshawar Rules, 1980.However, before her application could be processed, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018 was enacted, replacing the previous rules.Shaheen's application was subsequently rejected, leading her to file a constitutional petition in the Peshawar High Court, which was dismissed, prompting the present appeal.---Issues:Whether Shaheen had a vested right in the government accommodation under the previous rules that was protected despite the enactment of the new Act and Rules.Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant laws.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the Rules, 1980 and 2015 were repealed by the Act and Rules of 2018.It was noted that the previous rules did not provide for out-of-turn allotment to the spouse of a retired civil servant, and the new legislation did not grant an automatic benefit to retain government accommodation post-retirement.However, the Act of 2018 provided for a special quota for children and spouses of retired/deceased employees based on seniority, ensuring their rights were safeguarded.As Shaheen's name appeared on the waiting list, she would be entitled to accommodation according to her seniority under the quota system.The Court found no legal basis for Shaheen's claim under the old rules and upheld the High Court's judgment.---Citations/Precedents:KPK Residential Accommodation at Peshawar Rules, 1980Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018---Quote:The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act, 2018 and KPK Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 1980 do not provide an automatic benefit to the spouse or children of a deceased or retired civil servant to retain the government accommodation on retirement/demise of the original allottee, however, their rights have been safeguarded by providing a special quota in the available government housing which is based on seniority of applications.

Summary: (a) Land Acquisition Act—Determination of Compensation: • Issue: Whether the compensation for acquired land was appropriately determined considering its commercial potential and location. • Held: • The appellant claimed the land was commercial and requested compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- per marla. • The Collector fixed compensation at Rs. 1,00,000/- per marla, later enhanced to Rs. 3,14,285/- per marla by the Reference Judge. • The High Court upheld the Reference Judge’s decision, stating that the appellant failed to prove that the land’s market value matched the claimed amount. (b) Comparison with Precedent Cases: • Issue: Can compensation be enhanced based on the decision in Zulfiqar Muhammad Khan v. Azad Government? • Held: The Court held that the land in the cited case was situated on a roadside, unlike the appellant’s land. No parity could be drawn, and the cited precedent was deemed irrelevant. (c) Burden of Proof in Compensation Claims: • Issue: Who bears the burden of proving market value in compensation claims? • Held: The burden lies on the landowner to prove the market value with cogent evidence. Compensation cannot be enhanced based on conjectures or insufficient evidence. ----Disposition • Decision: The appeal was dismissed, as the appellant failed to substantiate the claimed market value of the land. No further enhancement was warranted.