Summary: In the present case, the petitioner failed to complete requisite qualification of B.Ed. within the cut-off date (even after expiry of period of contract) and mainly relied upon the cases of two individuals namely, Hussain Farabi of District Okara and Syed Atta-ul-Mustafa of District Faisalabad to contend that the said individuals were not only allowed extension in time to complete B.Ed. but their services were also regularized. Prima facie, the relaxation to similarly placed person is in negation of the uniform policy, which the government has put in place that no such extension shall be granted, therefore, this Court held that the principle of similarly placed person alone cannot be taken as ground for seeking the same benefit if same is not backed by any policy. It has been further held that the principle of similarly placed person in light of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 can be examined from another angle. The requirement to complete B.Ed qualification was fully applicable across the Province of Punjab and hundreds of other employees of the Education Department, who could not obtain the said qualification, were not extended relief (by way of extension to complete B.Ed) and only two instances have been brought before this Court i.e., case of Hussain Farabi and Syed Atta-ul-Mustafa. This fact itself indicates that the Department is consistent across the Province by adhering to the applicable policy, clarified vide letter dated 03.09.2018 issued with approval of the Administrative Secretary, and majority of such employees were not extended any relief. If doctrine of similarly placed person is to be applied, the petitioners should also not be extended any such relief as any contra decision (like in case of Hussain Farabi and Syed Atta-ul-Mustafa), will become a case of reverse discrimination qua those individuals across the Province who have been denied the extension and their constitutional petitions were dismissed by this Court and they remained unsuccessful in appeals. 1067Misc. Writ 30823/24 Rizwan Ali Raa Vs Government of Punjab etc. Mr. Justice Shahid Karim 17- 05- 2024 2024 LHC 2344 2024 CLD 1089 (Lahore)

Summary: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging notifications dated 06.12.2023 issued by the Secretary Local Government & Community Development Department, South Punjab. These notifications transferred the petitioner from the position of Municipal Officer (Infrastructure) at the Municipal Committee, Vehari, and directed the petitioner to report to the LG&CD Department, South Punjab. The petitioner argued that this transfer violated Section 186 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2022, which provides for a two-year tenure for officers of local governments. The petitioner further contended that the transfer was made during a ban imposed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) through its notification dated 15.08.2023. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Whether the transfer violated the security of tenure guaranteed under Section 186 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2022. ------- 2) Whether the transfer contravened the ban imposed by the Election Commission of Pakistan on postings and transfers. ------- 3) Whether the Secretary Local Government & Community Development Department acted in extraordinary circumstances justifying the transfer. ------- Holding, Reasoning, Outcome: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned transfer notifications were set aside. ------- Security of Tenure: Section 186 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2022, grants a two-year tenure to certain officers of local governments. Although the word "ordinarily" allows for exceptions, such deviations must be supported by valid reasons demonstrating extraordinary circumstances or public interest. The impugned notifications lacked any justification or valid reasons, rendering the transfer contrary to the statutory provision. ------- Election Commission’s Ban: While the ECP notification primarily addresses federal and provincial governments, the Secretary Local Government & Community Development Department, a provincial authority, issued the transfer notification. Therefore, the ban on postings and transfers was applicable, contrary to the respondents' contention. Continuity under Section 205 of the Act: The respondents argued that officers of defunct local governments were continuing services under Section 205(1) of the Act until new local governments were established. However, Section 205(2) clarifies that these officers must operate under the successor local governments, weakening the respondents' stance. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not claim a vested right to remain in a specific post but merely sought enforcement of statutory security of tenure. The transfer was premature and lacked extraordinary circumstances or public interest to justify it. ------- Outcome: The court set aside the notifications dated 06.12.2023. However, it clarified that the competent authority retains the power to transfer the petitioner after the requisite tenure or in extraordinary circumstances, provided the decision complies with the law. ------- Citations/Precedents: Section 186 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2022: Provides for a two-year tenure for local government officers unless extraordinary circumstances justify deviation. Notification by the Election Commission of Pakistan (15.08.2023): Imposed restrictions on postings and transfers, applicable to provincial authorities. Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: Empowers the High Court to enforce fundamental rights and statutory provisions.

Summary: The Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008 (Regulations) being non-statutory, the constitutional petition for the enforcement of said Regulations is not maintainable. 1075Family 75322/22 Kaneez Fatima and 1 other Vs Senior CIvil Judge etc Mr. Justice Muhammad Amjad Rafiq 15- 05- 2024 2024 LHC 2358 PLD 2024 Lahore 715, PLJ 2025 Lahore 159

Summary: ''The Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008 (Regulations) being non-statutory, the constitutional petition for the enforcement of said Regulations is not maintainable.'' --- Background:In this constitutional petition heard in the Lahore High Court, the petitioners, Wajahat Hussain Hussaini and others, challenged an office order dated August 31, 2023, from the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (PESSI). The order amended the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008, affecting the petitioners' eligibility for appointment as Assistants under a 25% graduate quota.---Issues:Whether the constitutional petition seeking enforcement of the PESSI Regulations, as amended, is maintainable.Whether the amendments to the Regulations by the PESSI Governing Body were lawful and within the scope of the Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965.Whether the petitioners had a vested right under the unamended Regulations that was unlawfully infringed by the amendments.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding:The PESSI Regulations, being created under the authority of the Governing Body and not by the Provincial Government or its approval, do not have the status of statutory regulations. Therefore, the constitutional petition seeking their enforcement is not maintainable.The amendments made to the Regulations by the Governing Body were within their legal rights and jurisdiction under sections 79 and 80 of the Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965. These sections allow the Governing Body to make regulations concerning the employment and administrative affairs of PESSI staff.The petitioners had not been formally appointed under the unamended Regulations prior to their amendment; thus, no vested rights were accrued in their favor to challenge the amendments.----Citations/Precedents:Nadeem Zuberi vs. Civil Aviation Authority through Director General (2023 PLC (C.S.) 1133): Cited by petitioners but found not applicable as it did not address a similar regulatory framework.Supreme Court judgments on non-statutory regulations: The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions which have consistently held that regulations made by authorities without statutory status do not grant enforceable rights in constitutional petitions.

Summary: Background:The petitioner, challenging the validity of office orders dated March 21, 2024, April 2, 2024, and a notification dated May 3, 2024, issued by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) through the Chief Secretary and three other respondents. The petitioner, initially appointed as a Lecturer in the KP Higher Education Department and later promoted to Assistant Professor, was on deputation as Deputy Director (Administration) in the KP Frontier Education Foundation. After filing a complaint against the Acting Managing Director for misuse of authority, the petitioner was transferred back to his parent department and then reassigned to Govt Degree College Naguman, Peshawar, which he contested through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. -----Issues: Validity of Office Orders and Notification: Whether the office orders and notification transferring the petitioner back to his parent department and reassigning him were valid. Completion of Deputation Tenure: Whether the petitioner had the right to complete his deputation period without premature repatriation. Exercise of Administrative Powers: Whether the respondents exercised their administrative powers in good faith and in accordance with the principles of service advancement. Judicial Precedents on Deputation: How judicial precedents address the rights of deputationists and the exercise of administrative powers by departments. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Validity of Office Orders and Notification: The court upheld the validity of the office orders and notification, noting that administrative transfers are within the respondents' powers and can be executed without malafide intentions or improper conduct. Completion of Deputation Tenure: The court clarified that deputationists do not have an inherent right to complete their tenure and can be repatriated at any time. The law recognizes the need for flexibility in administrative arrangements to serve public interest and service exigencies. Exercise of Administrative Powers: The court emphasized that administrative powers must be exercised in good faith, reasonably, and for service advancement. However, it found no evidence of malafide or improper conduct in the petitioner’s repatriation. Judicial Precedents on Deputation: The court referenced multiple precedents to reinforce that deputation is a temporary arrangement and does not confer a permanent right to the deputationist to remain in the borrowed post. Notable cases cited include those discussing the rights and limitations of deputationists and the administrative prerogatives of departments. ----Citations/Precedents: Judicial Interpretations on Deputation and Repatriation: Province of Sindh vs. Ghulam Fareed and others, 2014 SCMR 1189 Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Limited vs. Government of Pakistan, 2015 SCMR 360 Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others, 2013 SCMR 1752 Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of Sindh and others, 2015 SCMR 456 Masood Abbas Rizvi vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment and others, 2014 SCMR 799 Dr. Shafi-ur-Rahman Afridi vs. CDA Islamabad through Chairman and others, 2010 SCMR 378 Muhammad Ali Zahoor vs. Govt of Pakistan through Secretary Benazir Income Support Programme Islamabad and 3 others, 2023 PLC (CS) 826

Summary: The All Public Universities BPS Teachers Association (APUBTA) filed a constitution petition against the Federation of Pakistan and various provincial and educational authorities, seeking redress for issues related to the appointment of key administrative positions in public sector universities. The petition aimed to address the vacancies and acting charges of Vice-Chancellors and other tenure-based positions in these universities. The Supreme Court of Pakistan issued notices on 1 April 2024, requesting detailed comments from the respondents regarding the status of these positions and compliance with statutory requirements for holding meetings.----Issues:Whether the respondents have provided the necessary information regarding the status of Vice-Chancellors and other key positions in public sector universities.Whether public sector universities are compliant with statutory requirements for holding periodic meetings.Whether the delay in appointments and acting charges for key positions in public sector universities is justified.Whether the ratio of non-academic staff to faculty in public sector universities complies with the standards issued by the Higher Education Commission (HEC).----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Federation of Pakistan: The Federation requested more time to file comments, citing incomplete information from three universities. The Court found this excuse unjustifiable and directed the Federal Government to ensure compliance and gather the necessary information about all public sector universities, including those not governed by the Ministry of Education.Balochistan: The Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan, reported that 11 public sector universities exist in the province, with 5 Vice-Chancellors on acting charges. The Court noted that the comments did not address the statutory requirements for holding meetings or compliance therewith.Khyber Pakhtunkhwa: The Additional Advocate-General, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, stated that 19 out of 34 public sector universities have acting Vice-Chancellors. The Court emphasized the importance of transparency and the public's right to know about the selection and appointment processes.Punjab: The Additional Advocate-General, Punjab, informed the Court that 25 out of 34 public sector universities have vacant Vice-Chancellor positions. The Court questioned the validity of caretaker government restrictions on appointments and expected the process to be completed within two months.Sindh: The Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, reported that 7 out of 27 public sector universities have vacant Vice-Chancellor positions, with the appointment process underway.Higher Education Commission (HEC): The Director-General Coordination, HEC, highlighted that nearly all public sector universities violate the standard that non-academic staff should not exceed faculty by more than one and a half times. The Court directed respondents to submit detailed reports on staff ratios and financial dependencies within one month.The Court ordered that all vacant key positions in public sector universities be filled as soon as practicable, in accordance with the applicable laws, and scheduled the next hearing for 15 June 2024.----Citations/Precedents:Constitution of the Islamic Republic of PakistanArticle 19A: Right to information.Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012Elections Act, 2017Section 230: Restrictions during the caretaker government period.Higher Education Commission StandardsStandards for non-academic staff to faculty ratio.

Summary: (a) Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974 ----R. 11-A—Scope and interpretation—Appointment on deceased quota—Eligibility confined to children of deceased civil servant. Rule 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974 provides that where a civil servant dies during service, one of *his children* may be provided employment in BPS-1 to BPS-10 in the same department, if otherwise eligible. The provision creates a limited statutory right for the *children* of a deceased employee, not for siblings or other relatives. The rule does not envisage appointment of a brother of the deceased employee on the same basis. (b) Public employment ----Deceased quota—Claim by brother—Non-entitlement—Second appointment impermissible. The petitioner sought appointment as a Police Constable on the quota reserved for dependents of a deceased employee, contending that his brother, a Police Constable, had died in service. The High Court held that the petitioner's brother had himself been appointed earlier on the deceased quota and, under settled service jurisprudence, a second claim on the same quota is not maintainable. Once a family has availed benefit of the deceased quota, no subsequent appointment on that basis can be claimed by another family member. (c) Police Service—Recruitment criteria—Mandatory fitness standards—Non-fulfilment—Effect. Even if otherwise eligible, appointment to the post of Police Constable requires fulfilment of physical standards under the relevant recruitment and Police Rules, 1934. The petitioner was found deficient by one inch in chest measurement. Such deficiency rendered him ineligible for appointment, as recruitment to the disciplined police force must adhere strictly to the notified physical and educational criteria. (d) Constitutional jurisdiction (Art. 199 of the Constitution) ----Maintainability—No enforceable right—Administrative discretion—Scope of judicial review. Where the petitioner fails to establish a legal entitlement or violation of any statutory right, no writ of mandamus can be issued to compel appointment. Appointment on humanitarian grounds remains a matter of administrative discretion within the statutory framework, not a vested right enforceable under Art. 199. (e) Disposition— Constitutional petition dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner found ineligible and not entitled to appointment on deceased quota. Held— (i) Rule 11-A limits entitlement strictly to children of deceased employees. (ii) No second appointment can be claimed once the family has already benefited under the deceased quota. (iii) Failure to meet prescribed recruitment standards bars appointment to police service. (iv) Petition devoid of merit—dismissed.

Summary: Background: Several petitioners filed writ petitions against the Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJ&K) Public Service Commission and the Azad Government. The petitioners sought directions for their appointment to the advertised posts of Secondary School Teacher (General Line) BPS-16, claiming that they were qualified and had meritorious positions but were not listed in the final press release. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners, with their qualifications, were eligible for the advertised posts of Secondary School Teacher (General Line) BPS-16. 2- Whether the Higher Education Commission (HEC) notifications and departmental rules regarding the equivalence of educational qualifications were correctly applied. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioners were eligible for consideration based on their qualifications and professional degrees. The court determined that the degrees held by the petitioners, as recognized by HEC, were relevant and should be considered equivalent to the required qualifications for the advertised posts. The court directed the Public Service Commission to consider the petitioners' cases based on their meritorious positions and in accordance with the law within one month. ----Citations/Precedents: Notification dated 03.02.2015 by HEC. Notification dated 05.12.2018 by HEC. Order dated 30.12.2015 by Secretariat Elementary & Secondary Education. Notification dated 01.03.2017, "The Azad Jammu & Kashmir Teachers Recruitment Policy 2017". Maxwell Interpretation of Statutes. PLD 1968 Lah. 1012. PLD 1962 Lah. 453.

Summary: Background:The applicants/interveners sought their impleadment as necessary parties to a legal dispute concerning a judgment adversely affecting their rights.The dispute arose from appointments made in the IT Cadre of the Police Department, with 500 individuals appointed following a relevant advertisement.The applicants argued that they were condemned unheard in the impugned judgment and sought to have adverse observations expunged.---Issues:Whether the applicants were entitled to be impleaded as necessary parties due to the adverse impact of the judgment on their rights.Whether the appointments made in the IT Cadre of the Police Department were valid and in accordance with the law.Whether adverse observations made in the impugned judgment against the newly added respondents should be set aside.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court allowed the impleadment of the applicants as necessary parties, considering the adverse impact of the judgment on their rights and the principle of audi alteram partem.It was argued that the appointments in the IT Cadre of the Police Department were made following due process, including the issuance of advertisements and the formation of relevant rules.Adverse observations made against the newly added respondents were deemed unfair, as they were not heard during the proceedings before the High Court.The court directed that the adverse observations be set aside and clarified the continued service of certain individuals appointed as ASIs in 2004, specifying their seniority and promotion to be governed by applicable laws, rules, and regulations.---Citations/Precedents:Gul Hassan Jatoi and others vs. Faqir Muhammad Jatoi and others (2016 SCMR 1254)Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973Rules framed thereunderPolice Act, 1861

Summary: (a) Civil Servants—Reinstatement—Back benefits—Entitlement—Rule and exception— ----Civil servant was dismissed from service but dismissal order was set aside in service appeal and he was reinstated with effect from date of dismissal—Claim of appellant for treating intervening period as spent on duty and grant of back benefits was declined by authority—Validity—Held, where an illegal order of dismissal is set aside and civil servant is reinstated with original seniority, he is to be deemed in continuous service and entitled to all consequential benefits including salary and allowances for intervening period as if he had actually performed duties—Grant of back benefits is a rule and its denial is an exception, which can only be justified on proof that employee remained gainfully employed during such period—In absence of any proof of gainful employment, denial of back benefits was unlawful—Authority was bound to grant consequential financial benefits—Appeal was allowed accordingly and respondent was directed to calculate and grant financial back benefits. Cited Cases: Pakistan through General Manager, P.W.R., Lahore v. Mrs. A.V. Issacs PLD 1970 SC 415 Inspector General of Police, Punjab v. Tariq Mahmood 2015 SCMR 77 Muhammad Sharif and others v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others 2021 SCMR 962 (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973— ----Art. 25—Equality before law—Discrimination in grant of back benefits— Appellant pleaded that similarly placed officers were granted back benefits while same relief was denied to him—Respondent failed to rebut said stance—Held, selective denial of back benefits to appellant, when same had been granted to similarly placed employees, amounted to discrimination and violated constitutional guarantee of equality before law enshrined under Art.25 of the Constitution—Appellant was entitled to same treatment and consequential financial benefits. (c) Service law—Limitation—Relief based on established legal right— ----Bar of limitation—Effect— Respondent contended that claim was barred by time—Validity—Held, where entitlement of employee to back benefits is established on basis of reinstatement and settled law, technical plea of limitation cannot defeat substantive right—Limitation cannot be allowed to perpetuate illegality or deny lawful service benefits—Authority was bound to grant relief despite plea of limitation. Cited Case: Abdul Hameed and others v. Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman, Lahore and others 2021 SCMR 1230 Disposition: Service Appeal No.03 of 2022 was allowed and respondent was directed to calculate and grant financial back benefits to appellant for intervening period in light of settled law.