Summary: 1034Regular First Appeal (R.F.A) (Final Decree) 2305635.1583-

Summary: The court dealt with administrative issues in the Education Department, including reshuffling, vacancies, and policy adherence. It issued a show cause notice to the Secretary for policy violations, ordered investigations, and ensured protocol adherence.

Summary: (a) Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972---- ----S. 3(2), proviso---Intra Court Appeal---Maintainability---Constitutional petition arising out of proceedings where law provided at least one appeal, revision or review---Effect---Where order of National Bank of Pakistan declining respondent’s promotion claim was passed on respondent’s departmental appeal and was set aside by learned Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction, Intra Court Appeal against such order was not maintainable in view of proviso to S.3(2), Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. (b) Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972---- ----S. 3(2), proviso---Test for maintainability of Intra Court Appeal---Availability of remedy against original order---Relevant consideration is whether original order in proceedings was subject to at least one appeal, revision or review under applicable law, irrespective of whether such remedy was actually availed by party---If such statutory remedy existed, Intra Court Appeal from order of Single Judge under Art.199 would be barred. Cited Cases: • Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and another PLD 1984 SC 344 • Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre-I, Lahore PLD 1985 SC 107 • International Islamic University, Islamabad through Rector and another v. Syed Naveed Altaf and others 2024 SCMR 472 (c) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art. 199---Order passed by Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction---Intra Court Appeal---Bar under Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972---Single Judge had allowed writ petition, set aside order dated 11.12.2023 declining promotion, and directed National Bank of Pakistan to reconsider respondent’s case on merits in light of Supreme Court judgment---Since impugned departmental decision itself was passed in appeal proceedings, Intra Court Appeal before Division Bench was incompetent. (d) Service law---- ----Promotion---Departmental appeal decided by President/authorized committee of National Bank of Pakistan---Constitutional petition allowed by Single Judge---Intra Court Appeal by bank---Maintainability objection---Bank’s appeal before Division Bench was dismissed without entering into merits because order challenged before Single Judge had arisen out of proceedings where appellate remedy was available/availed. (e) Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972---- ----S. 3(2), proviso---Purpose and scope---Proviso restricts further intra-court remedy where matter brought before High Court under Art.199 arises from proceedings in which applicable law already provided one appeal, revision or review before any court, tribunal or authority---Such bar applies even when Single Judge’s order is otherwise passed under constitutional jurisdiction. (f) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Promotion dispute---Single Judge’s direction for reconsideration---Division Bench declined appeal on maintainability---Where learned Single Judge merely set aside departmental appellate order and directed reconsideration of promotion case on merits, Division Bench held that Intra Court Appeal was barred and dismissed same as not maintainable. Disposition: I.C.A. No.85 of 2024 along with connected I.C.A. Nos.86, 87 and 88 of 2024 were dismissed as not maintainable under proviso to S.3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972; order dated 09.05.2024 passed by learned Single Judge remained intact.

Summary: The petitioner was appointed as Director General of Planning, Policy, Innovation, Program, and Research (PPIP&R) in December 2021 by the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (NEECA). He was placed on a one-year probation, and after the probation period ended in December 2022, the petitioner was terminated by NEECA through a letter issued in January 2023. The petitioner challenged this termination, arguing that once the probation period ended, he automatically became a regular employee and could not be terminated summarily without due process. The petitioner also sought to set aside the decision to abolish the post of Director General made in the 9th Board Meeting of NEECA. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the petitioner became a regular employee after the expiration of the probation period. ----- 2) Whether the termination of the petitioner’s employment was in accordance with NEECA Service Regulations. ----- 3) Whether the abolition of the Director General post was legally valid and whether the petitioner should be adjusted to another position. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----- Regular Employee Status: The court held that the petitioner became a regular employee on 28-12-2022 since NEECA failed to inform him of unsatisfactory performance before the expiration of the probation period. Under NEECA Service Regulations, probation does not extend automatically, and the failure to confirm or terminate employment by the end of the probation period results in automatic confirmation. Therefore, the petitioner was deemed a regular employee as of 28-12-2022. ----- Termination Invalid: The court found that the termination letter issued on 20-01-2023 was unlawful because it violated the NEECA Service Regulations. The petitioner, being a regular employee, could not be removed summarily without following proper procedures for disciplinary action, such as conducting an inquiry. Thus, the termination letter was set aside. ----- Abolishment of the Post: The court upheld the decision of the NEECA Board to abolish the Director General post. The court held that policy decisions regarding the creation or abolition of posts, especially due to financial constraints, fall within the prerogative of the statutory body and are not subject to judicial review. Since the post was legally abolished through a gazette notification in March 2024, the petitioner could not be reinstated to that position. The court also ruled that the petitioner could not be adjusted to another post, as this decision rests with NEECA based on its requirements and available vacancies. ----- Outcome: The petition was partially allowed. The termination letter dated 20-01-2023 was set aside, and the petitioner was entitled to receive salary and benefits from the date of termination until the abolition of the post on 05-03-2024. The court dismissed the petition concerning the abolition of the post. ----- Citations/Precedents: Pakistan Defence Officers’ Housing Authority Vs. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) Muhammad Rafique Vs. Director-General, Pakistan Rangers, Sindh (2004 SCMR 23) Punjab Workers' Welfare Board Vs. Mehr Din (2007 SCMR 13) Secretary, Ministry of Education Vs. M. Azam Ch. (2009 SCMR 194) Gul Hassan Jatoi Vs. Faqir Muhammad Jatoi (2016 SCMR 1254) Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi Vs. Government of Punjab (2004 SCMR 44) Qazi Tehmid Ahmed Vs. Secretary Ministry of Petroleum (2015 PLC (C.S.) 449) Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Vs. Saeed-ul-Hassan (2022 PLC (C.S) 164) Abdul Hameed Vs. Water and Power Development Authority (2021 SCMR 1230)

Summary: (a) Service Law – Eligibility for Promotion Examination: ----Section Officers Promotional Examination – Requirement of Regular Service----Held, applicants for the Section Officers Promotional Examination (SOPE-2016) must have completed eight years of regular service in BS-11 to BS-16. Service interruptions, including dismissal and reinstatement, affect eligibility. Concealment of dismissal from service renders an application misleading and ineligible. ----Cited Cases: • Vice Chancellor, Agricultural University Peshawar v. Muhammad Shafiq (2024 SCMR 527) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406) • Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) (b) Administrative Law – Effect of Misrepresentation in Government Applications: ----Concealment of Dismissal from Service – Consequences for Promotion Eligibility----Held, an applicant who fails to disclose a prior dismissal from service in an official application to the FPSC violates the principles of transparency and good faith. Such concealment justifies rejection of candidature. FPSC acted within its authority by refusing participation in SOPE-2016. ----Cited Cases: • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Shahzad Iqbal (2021 SCMR 675) • Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Arif (2020 SCMR 507) • Muzaffar Khan v. Government of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 304) (c) Constitutional Law – Judicial Review of FPSC Decisions: ----Scope of Judicial Review – No Interference in Transparent Recruitment Processes----Held, courts will not interfere with FPSC decisions unless there is a manifest illegality. Where an applicant has provided false information regarding service tenure, the FPSC’s rejection of candidature does not warrant judicial intervention. ----Cited Cases: • Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998) • Khyber Medical University v. Aimal Khan (PLD 2022 SC 92) (d) Public Service Recruitment – Validity of Departmental Permission Certificates (DPC): ----Withdrawal of DPC Due to Misrepresentation – No Right to Challenge----Held, issuance of a Departmental Permission Certificate (DPC) does not validate an applicant’s eligibility if obtained through concealment of facts. A department has the authority to withdraw a DPC upon discovering misrepresentation. ---Cited Cases: • Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA v. Dr. Lal Marjan (2022 SCMR 566) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board v. Raheel Ali Gohar (2020 SCMR 2068) ----Disposition: (i) Appeal dismissed as the appellant did not meet the service requirement for SOPE-2016. (ii) FPSC acted lawfully in rejecting candidature due to concealment of dismissal from service. (iii) Withdrawal of the DPC by NH&MP was justified due to misrepresentation. (iv) The court declines to interfere with FPSC’s decision, emphasizing transparency in public service recruitment.

Summary: Background: In this case, the petitioner serving as a Professor of Cardiology at the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), challenged the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Professor of Cardiology and as the Head of the Cardiology Department at PIMS on a contract basis. Respondent No. 3 had retired from service and was re-employed shortly thereafter. The petitioner filed a writ of quo warranto, questioning the legality of the appointment, alleging it violated the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and blocked the petitioner’s promotion prospects. -----Issues: ---1- Whether the re-employment of respondent No. 3 after his retirement is in violation of Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. ---2- Whether the appointment of respondent No. 3 was necessary in the public interest as required under the Civil Servants Act. ---3- Whether the petitioner, as a senior serving professor, has a legitimate expectation to be appointed as the Head of the Cardiology Department, and if his promotion rights were unlawfully blocked. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Violation of Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973: The court observed that Section 14(1) of the Civil Servants Act prohibits the re-employment of a retired civil servant unless it is deemed necessary in the public interest and approved by the appropriate authority. The respondent's re-appointment lacked sufficient justification and public interest requirements. The record did not show any necessity for re-employing respondent No. 3, nor was there evidence that there were no suitable replacements for him. The court also noted that the Executive Director of PIMS had recommended withdrawing the notification of respondent No. 3's appointment, further weakening the legitimacy of the re-appointment. ---Lack of Public Interest Justification: The court held that no material was provided to justify that respondent No. 3’s appointment was in the public interest, a requirement under Section 14(1). The court stressed that re-employment after retirement is an exception, not the rule, and must be supported by clear reasons recorded by the appointing authority. In this case, such reasons were absent, rendering the appointment unjustifiable. ---Legitimate Expectation of the Petitioner: The petitioner, being the seniormost professor in the Cardiology Department, had a legitimate expectation to be considered for the position of Head of Department. The court held that respondent No. 3’s appointment after retirement deprived the petitioner of his right to fair consideration for promotion, in violation of his fundamental rights. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned notification of respondent No. 3’s re-employment and appointment as Head of the Cardiology Department. The court emphasized that the re-appointment did not meet the legal standards for public interest and necessity, and the petitioner’s right to promotion had been unlawfully obstructed. -----Citations/Precedents: Suo Motu Case No. 24/2010 (PLD 2011 SC 277) Aziz ur Rehman Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2014 Islamabad 53) Nusrat Rasheed Vs. Federation of Pakistan (2021 PLC (C.S.) 777) Union of India Vs. Hem Ram Chauhan (2010 (4) SCC 290) The court further directed that there be no order as to costs.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Civil service---Factual controversy between civil servant and department---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, invoking of---Scope---Whether the appointment of the petitioner was genuine or otherwise ?---Held: High Court cannot determine the veracity of the claims and counter-claims and the documents presented by the parties, as the same were disputed questions of facts between them, which could not be adjudicated by the High Court while exercising the constitutional jurisdiction as the earlier petition of the petitioner had already been dismissed by the High Court---Therefore , the High Court could not give sanctity to the documents produced by them and leave it for the competent authority of the respondents to determine the genuineness or otherwise of the documents, claims and counter-claim---Issue of genuineness of appointment of the petitioner, his salary and arrear, if any could be determined by head of the department, thus on the said plea, the constitutional petition filed by the petitioner could not be maintained---High Court directed the Chief Secretary to constitute a committee headed by the administrative head of the concerned department, conduct an inquiry into the allegations of the parties against each others after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the parties---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others v. Aamir Junaid and others 2015 SCMR 74 ref. Petitioner present in person. Ghulam Abbas Kubar, Assistant Advocate General along with Dr. Abdul Qadir Bhutto, DHO Khairpur on behalf of Director Health Services Sindh, Hyderabad, Dr. Anwar Ali on behalf of District Health Officer, Sukkur and Dr. Rehmatullah, Additional Director, Director Health Office, Larkana. Date of hearing: 23rd May, 2024.

Summary: The petitioner approached the Court by concealing factum of implementation of the impugned order and joining of the petitioner on its own volition. The petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.100,000/- with the observation that fraud as is well-known vitiates the most solemn proceedings. Fraud and justice never dwell together. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and a person approaching the Court with unclean hands renders the stream of justice sullied. This Court is constrained to observe that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused by unscrupulous persons from all walks of life and such abuse of process is considered by such litigants as a convenient device to achieve and retain their illegal objectives and designs. Unfortunately, this practice is spreading its tentacles on wider planes primarily on account of leniency exhibited towards such litigants as they generally go off scot-free. Therefore, this Court is of considered view that a person, like petitioner, whose case is based on concealment and falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and such litigant must be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation, with costs. 1059ITR (Income Tax Reference) 1-19 COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE VS MASOOD UL HASSAN ETC Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 20- 05- 2024 2024 LHC 3179 2025 PTD 58 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)] (https://sys.lhc.gov.pk/appjudgments/2024LHC317

Summary: -----The petitioner approached the Court by concealing factum of implementation of the impugned order and joining of the petitioner on its own volition. The petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.100,000/- with the observation that fraud as is well-known vitiates the most solemn proceedings. Fraud and justice never dwell together. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties and a person approaching the Court with unclean hands renders the stream of justice sullied. This Court is constrained to observe that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused by unscrupulous persons from all walks of life and such abuse of process is considered by such litigants as a convenient device to achieve and retain their illegal objectives and designs. Unfortunately, this practice is spreading its tentacles on wider planes primarily on account of leniency exhibited towards such litigants as they generally go off scot-free. Therefore, this Court is of considered view that a person, like petitioner, whose case is based on concealment and falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and such litigant must be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation, with costs. -----Background: The petitioner, an employee of the District Health Authority, Khanewal, challenged a transfer order dated 04.04.2024, claiming it violated applicable service rules and a Chief Minister-imposed transfer ban. The court initially granted a stay on the transfer, conditional on it not being implemented. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a criminal application, alleging forgery by respondents in processing the transfer. However, the respondents presented evidence showing the petitioner had already joined the new post on 15.04.2024, information he had concealed from the court. -----Issues: 1- Does the petitioner’s concealment of the joining report affect his eligibility for interim relief? -----2- Should the petition be dismissed due to the petitioner’s lack of transparency with the court? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution requires complete transparency and honesty from petitioners. Concealment or fraud undermines the integrity of justice, and any party approaching the court with unclean hands forfeits the right to relief. The court imposed a fine of Rs. 100,000 on the petitioner for abuse of process and concealment of material facts, which must be paid to the Lahore High Court Bar Association Dispensary within 15 days. -----Citations/Precedents: Courts require full disclosure and honesty from petitioners in cases involving equitable and discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution. Concealment of material facts constitutes an abuse of the court's process and warrants dismissal of the petition.

Summary: Following question has been put for opinion of this Court: "Whether an employee of a project that has been converted from the development side to non-development side, is entitled to be regularized, as a matter of right? Held that the legal question is well settled in case titled "Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others v. Muhammad Younas" (2021 SCMR 1045). It has been further observed that in the Province of Punjab, earlier there was no policy for regularization of the project employees, however, now through letter dated 06.06.2022, certain safeguards are put in place for the benefit of the project employees by way of age relaxation as also additional marks (maximum upto 10 marks) additional marks on account of experience during the life of the project and therefore, project employees seeking employment on regular basis are obligated to compete alongwith other candidates. However, it has also been observed that the respondents have intended to continue the Projects and converted the same from the development to non-development side. Any organization aims at continuity in its working and functions which may run into difficulty if the serving employees are ousted from the service and asked to compete in the process. Therefore, it is prudent that the petitioners, who are admittedly in service, are allowed to continue to work till the completion of the process of recruitment, on regular basis, through competitive process and further continuation of the petitioners would be determined only if they qualify and stand on the merit list. 1063Execution First Appeal (EFA) 13-23 M/S TEAM PACKAGES VS MCB BANK LIMITED Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran 20- 05- 2024 2024 LHC 2677 2024 CLD 839 [Lahore (Multan Bench)]