2019 PLC(CS) 1278

Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 1443 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : RIZWAN ULLAH
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA
Chap. XXVIII---Superintendent of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education---Promotion against the post of Assistant Controller---Discretion, exercise of---Requirements---Authority in case of available vacant posts was bound to first fill two posts by promotion from the next lower grade on the basis of seniority -cum-merit or on deputation and the third being a selection post should be filled from the employees of the Board---When authority had been conferred with the powers of discretion then same was to be exercised in a judicious, transparent and impartial manner---Equal opportunity was to be provided to the employees of the Board as well as other civil servants in the service of Pakistan/Province---No post of Assistant Secretary / Controller so far had been filled from the employees of the Board---Board authorities were directed to immediately fill one third of the posts of Assistant Secretary/Controller by selecting the employees of Board and remaining posts on promotion from the employees in their respective cadres on the basis of seniority -cum-merit or deputation---Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 507 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Side Appellant : MAJEED ULLAH
Side Opponent : The DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE) AND PESHAWAR
S. 4---Inter-districts transfer---seniority , determination of---Promotion---Equal protection of law---Scope---Employee was transferred from one district to another district with the condition that his seniority would be determined at the bottom of seniority list under the rules---Name of petitioner was not mentioned at proper place of seniority list and he filed representation which was allowed but same was not implemented---Validity---Every citizen had right to be treated in accordance with law---Where availability of alternate remedy was a question before entertaining a constitutional petition, impugned action of officials should be considered first---If actions of department were not within the confines of law or were based on some extraneous reasons, petitioner might be granted such relief as prayed---Petitioner, in the present case, had sought issuance of writ to implement the order of authorities---Consideration for promotion did not fall within the terms and conditions of service as eligibility was still to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee---Right of seniority of petitioner-employee to be considered qua his colleagues had been made less secure due to the actions of authorities---Grievance of employee could be redressed in under the constitutional jurisdiction by directing the authorities to abide by the decision of their senior officers and treat the petitioner at par with his other colleagues for the purpose of seniority as well as promotion---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 692 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KHALID
Side Opponent : NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
Promotion---Employee of National Bank of Pakistan---Seeking promotion after retirement---Scope---Promotion against a higher post in the relevant year was subject to evaluation in the shape of seniority , professional and educational qualification in addition to interview---Petitioner did not appear for interview and without his assessment he could not be promoted---Petitioner had failed to fulfill the pre-requisite for promotion under the Promotion Policy, 2015---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 339 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : TAHIR PERVAIZ, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LEGAL AFFAIRS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
R. 4(2)---Contractual employment, termination of---Competent authority---Distinction between 'approval' and 'prior approval' of competent authority---Petitioner, who was appointed as Director General (Legal affairs) in Pakistan Railways on contract basis, challenged his termination on the grounds that the same was carried out without necessary approval of the competent authority i.e. the Prime Minister, and that if any approval had been made it was ex-post facto approval which was not permissible under the law---Validity---In terms of Sl. No. 140, Chapter 2 [Recruitment/Appointment/seniority and Promotion] of ESTA Code, and R. 4 of the Federal Rules of Business, 1973, the competent authority to appoint the petitioner was the Selection Board headed by the Secretary of the Ministry/Division and not the Prime Minister, who was only the approving authority---Approving authority of the petitioner was undoubtedly the Prime Minister but it was noticeable that the word 'prior' was never mentioned in Sl. No. 140, Chapter 2 [Recruitment/Appointment/ seniority and Promotion] of ESTA Code; meaning thereby that although the 'approval' of the Prime Minister for the appointment of the petitioner was essential yet 'prior approval' was not necessary for his appointment or termination---If the words used were "with the prior approval of the Prime Minister", the impugned termination order could not be issued without first obtaining the approval of the Prime Minister---Since the words used in the procedure provided were "Approving Authority", the impugned termination order could be passed after obtaining the approval of the Prime Minister subsequently and in case the Prime Minister did not grant approval subsequently, any action taken on the basis of the decision of the Board would be invalid and not otherwise---In the present case, the termination of the petitioner was approved by the Prime Minister subsequently---Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner against his termination was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 PLD 178 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : TAHIR PERVAIZ, DIRECTOR-GENERAL, LEGAL AFFAIRS, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS
Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
R. 4(2)---Contractual employment, termination of---Competent authority---Distinction between 'approval' and 'prior approval' of competent authority---Petitioner, who was appointed as Director General (Legal affairs) in Pakistan Railways on contract basis, challenged his termination on the grounds that the same was carried out without necessary approval of the competent authority i.e. the Prime Minister, and that if any approval had been made it was ex-post facto approval which was not permissible under the law---Validity---In terms of SI. No. 140, Chap. 2 [Recruitment/Appointment/seniority and Promotion] of ESTA Code, and R.4 of the Federal Rules of Business, 1973, the competent authority to appoint the petitioner was the Selection Board headed by the Secretary of the Ministry/Division and not the Prime Minister, who was only the approving authority---Approving authority of the petitioner was undoubtedly the Prime Minister but it was noticeable that the word 'prior' was never mentioned in SI. No. 140, Chapter 2 [Recruitment/Appointment/ seniority and Promotion] of ESTA Code; meaning thereby that although the 'approval' of the Prime Minister for the appointment of the petitioner was essential yet prior approval' was not necessary for his appointment or termination---If the words used were "with the prior approval of the Prime Minister", the impugned termination order could not be issued without first obtaining the approval of the Prime Minister---Since the words used in the procedure provided were "Approving Authority", the impugned termination order could be passed after obtaining the approval of the Prime Minister subsequently and in case the Prime Minister did not grant approval subsequently, any action taken on the basis of the decision of the Board would be invalid and not otherwise---In the present case , the termination of the petitioner was approved by the Prime Minister subsequently---Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner against his termination was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 PLD 399 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : Syed MUHAMMAD IQBAL KAZMI
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Arts. 4, 8, 25, 37, 175-A 177(2)(a) & 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Judge of (Sindh) High Court who was fourth on the seniority list was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court---Plea of petitioner that elevation of said Judge was against Arts.4, 8, 25 & 37 of the Constitution, and that Art.177(2)(a) of the Constitution was in conflict with Arts.25, 37 & 175-A of the Constitution---Validity---Petitioner conceded that he had not filed the present Constitutional petition for enforcement of any of his Fundamental Rights as enshrined in the Constitution nor same had been infringed in any manner---Besides, petitioner also conceded that the Judge in question who was nominated for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court was eligible and fulfilled the requisite conditions as envisaged in the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 1278 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUSHEER AHMED
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH
S.3---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S.2(a)(b)(ii)---Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and seniority ) Rules, 1975, R.10(1)(2)---Contract employee seeking regularization of service from the date of initial appointment---Scope---seniority ---Determination of---Procedure---Petitioners-employees were regularized with immediate effect on promulgation of Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013---Contention of petitioners was that they were to be regularized from the date of their initial appointment---Validity---Employees appointed on ad hoc and contract basis were to be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis immediately before the commencement of Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013---Petitioners were to be regularized in service with immediate effect i.e. from the date of issuance of notification under Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 as before the commencement of said Act they were not working against the sanctioned budgetary posts but on fixed period project posts---Contract employees could not be termed as civil servants---Petitioners before regularization of their service were not civil servants as they were working on particular project on contract basis---seniority of civil servant was to be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment---Appointment made on ad hoc basis could not be regularized retrospectively---Contract/ad-hoc period of service could not be counted in seniority of a civil servant---Service of employees having been regularized with immediate effect were to be regularized from the date of promulgation of Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013---Service of petitioners could not be regularized with effect from their initial appointment on contract basis---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2019 PLC(CS) 1278 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUSHEER AHMED
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH
seniority of civil servant was to be reckoned from the date of his regular appointment.