Civil service

Where the sole allegation in the departmental proceedings is that the civil servant has been involved in, or is facing, a criminal case, and no independent and probe-able act of misconduct is alleged, the acquittal of the civil servant in the criminal case removes the very substratum of the departmental charge

The disciplinary machinery cannot stand on its own in such circumstances because there exists no stand-alone allegation that the department can independently inquire into or establish through departmental evidence

The charge of “involvement in a criminal case” is, by its very nature, incapable of departmental proof, it belongs exclusively to the criminal forum

Once the criminal court has adjudged the civil servant not guilty on the same accusation, the departmental authority is left with nothing to determine; the entire charge falls to the ground.

Departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal proceedings, though sometimes arising out of the same set of facts, operate indistinct legal domains and are governed by different standards of proof

The disciplinary inquiry is founded on the preponderance of probability, aimed at preserving the integrity and efficiency of public service, whereas a criminal trial proceeds on the stricter standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, intended to determine penalliability

Consequently, the pendency or outcome of one does not automatically affect the other, and both may lawfully proceed concurrently.

Briefly, the petitioner, who was a Police Constable (BPS-07), was nominated in a FIR registered under sections 302, 311, 147 and 148 P.P.C., whereupon departmental proceedings were initiated against him under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, leading to his dismissal from service

Upon preferring appeal, he was provisionally reinstated with directions for a de novo inquiry, during which period he was acquitted in the criminal case, yet upon conclusion of the de novo inquiry he was again dismissed from service, with his departmental appeal, revision, and subsequent appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal being dismissed, culminating in the filing of the present civil petition before the Supreme Court, raising the legal issue “whether a major penalty of dismissal could lawfully be sustained where departmental action was founded solely on the employee's involvement in a criminal case, notwithstanding his acquittal therein, and where no independent departmental misconduct was examined or established?”

Held: It had been a settled law that where departmental proceedings rested on independent and probe-able evidence of misconduct, an acquittal in the criminal case did not absolve the employee, and both proceedings could lawfully be run concurrently

However, where the departmental action was founded solely on the registration or pendency of an FIR, without any distinct charge of misconduct, the employee's subsequent acquittal extinguished that foundation, rendering any ensuing penalty legally untenable and constitutionally infirm

Impugned judgment was set aside as well as the order of dismissal of the petitioner and as a result he was re-instated into service

Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

Major penalty of dismissal from service cannot be awarded without conducting regular inquiry or providing opportunity of being heard to a civil servant, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

Where an amendment adversely effects the accrued substantive rights, such as those pertaining to seniority or eligibility for promotion, it cannot be applied retrospectively to the employees appointed prior to amendment.

Briefly, the respondents were appointed as 'sub engineers' in the year 1986 and were later upgraded to BPS-16 from BPS-12

Upon becoming eligible under the then-applicable service rules, their working papers for promotion to the post of 'assistant engineer' in BPS-17 were prepared, but the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was deferred by the department on the ground that new promotion rules were under consideration, subsequently, revised rules were notified, under which the respondents were declared ineligible for promotion, while their departmental appeals remained undecided, leading them to file service appeals before the service tribunal, which were allowed, holding them entitled to promotion in accordance with the rules applicable at the time they became eligible

The said judgment of service tribunal was challenged by the department before the Supreme Court through present civil petitions for leave to appeal

Held: Respondents had satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion pursuant to the rules enforced at the time of their initial appointment

Consequently, their cases were fully ripe for consideration by DPC

The subsequent delay in convening meeting of the DPC was an administrative failure attributable solely to the department and could not be imputed to the respondents

The subsequently amended rules were to operate prospectively unless a contrary intimation was manifestly evident from the statute

Question of whether the amended rules were to be applied retrospectively or prospectively was beyond the scope of DPC's mandate

The DPC also did not have the authority to delay the meeting while waiting for amendment of the rules

Leave was declined and present petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Whoever fulfills the prescribed eligibility conditions acquires a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion in accordance with the prevailing rules.

Petitioner (Naib Qasid in the Excise and Taxation Department) was terminated following proceedings initiated on an anonymous complaint received against him

In the present case, three witnesses were examined, but concededly, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner/servant to cross-exame such witnesses during the inquiry proceedings to defend the charges or to prove his innocence

Under all Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, either federal or provincial, an infallible and watertight procedure is already provided for conducting departmental inquiries, and sanguine to the philosophy/principle of natural justice and due process of law, a right of cross-examination is recognized as an inalienable and undeniable right

Furthermore, if said valuable right is repudiated, it will amount the strangulation and deprivation of the well-entrenched right of defense, despite this right being provided for in all Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules unequivocally and distinctly

Au fait, prior to appointing an inquiry officer, the competent authority should have ensured, with due diligence, that the person so appointed is familiar with and sentient to the rudimentary rules of inquiry

Primary objective of conducting departmental inquiry is to grasp whether a clear-cut case of misconduct is made out against the accused or not

The guilt or innocence is founded on the end result of the inquiry

In a regular inquiry, it is a precondition that an even-handed and fair opportunity should be provided to the accused and if any witness is examined against him then a fair opportunity should also be afforded to cross-examine the witnesses

In a departmental inquiry on the charges of misconduct, the standard of proof is that of balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence

Where any authority regulates and performs its affairs which requires the compliance of the principles of natural justice then it should have been adhered to inflexibly

Supreme Court set-aside the removal from service order of the petitioner, remanding the matter to the competent authority to conduct a de novo inquiry into the allegations of misconduct after providing ample opportunity of defence to the petitioner

Civil petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly.

At its core, the principle of proportionality requires that when an administrative authority exercises discretionary power, it must strike a fair balance between the adverse effects of its decision on the rights, liberties, or interests of individuals and the legitimate aim or purpose the decision seeks to achieve

A more refined version of the principle of proportionality analysis adopts a structured, four-stage test, requiring courts to address the following questions to determine whether an impugned measure is constitutionally or legally justifiable, which includes: (i) Legitimacy: Does the action pursue a legitimate objective recognized by law? (ii) Suitability (Rational Connection): Is the measure capable of achieving that objective, i.e., is there a rational nexus between the means employed and the aim pursued? (iii) Necessity: Could the same objective have been achieved through a less restrictive or less onerous alternative? and (iv) Proportionality stricto sensu (Balancing): Does the measure maintain a fair balance between the severity of its impact on the individual and the importance of the public interest it serves?

Moreover, Articles 4, 14 and 25 of the Constitution collectively impose a duty upon the courts to ensure that executive or disciplinary measures not only pursue lawful objectives but do so in a manner that is just, fair, and proportionate

In disciplinary jurisprudence, proportionality maintains a delicate balance between public and private rights

While civil servants are entitled to procedural fairness and protection from arbitrary sanctions, these rights must be balanced against the compelling public interest in maintaining the integrity and accountability of public institutions

The principle of proportionality at its most functional level ultimately hinges on a singular, decisive question: whether the interference with private rights is justified by a corresponding and weighty public interest

This balancing offers a structured framework for assessing the sustainability of disciplinary penalties

The penalty imposed must be evaluated not in isolation, but in relation to the degree of harm caused to the public interest and the severity of intrusion upon the private rights of the officer

A constitutionally and administratively sustainable penalty is one that serves a legitimate public objective without inflicting excessive or unnecessary harm upon individual rights

The test is not merely whether discipline is warranted, but whether the measure adopted strikes a fair and reasonable equilibrium between the legitimate aims of the institution and the human dignity of the individual

Accordingly, the principle of proportionality, in its clearest form may be said to rest on the following standard: The action taken achieves a necessary public goal without causing disproportionate harm to private interest

Furthermore, while proportionality strengthens constitutional adjudication when properly employed, its misuse can undermine the very values it seeks to uphold

A disproportionate decision may also violate the rule of law.

The controversy arose from the petitioners' removal from service despite being appointed through a formal recruitment process and allegedly fulfilling all codal formalities

It was contended that although a list of 166 similarly appointed employees had been accepted and their salaries released pursuant to a consent order, the petitioners claimed they were also covered in that list but were not reinstated that two scrutiny reports were compiled indicating that the petitioners were not at fault and the responsibility lay with the ex-director, however, the department still issued show-cause notices and removed the petitioners from service; that the service tribunal failed to properly consider these facts and previous judgments/orders, including the verification of their credentials already deemed genuine

Held: The grievance, rather the contention, of the petitioners that they were not fully covered in the list of the 166 employees and their credentials were already scrutinized by the competent authority, was not considered properly before dismissing the service appeals

In order to thrash out and reconcile the controversy to some logical end, it was deemed most advantageous and expedient to constitute a three-member committee to scrutinize the cases of the present petitioners to assess whether they fell within the category of the aforesaid 166 employees and were thus entitled for restoration/appointment in service or not

The law officer along with officials present in court also assured that the committee would consider the credentials/antecedents of all the petitioners as well as the reports and the list of employees compiled earlier, with an independent application of mind, for reaching a just and proper conclusion in the matter

All civil petitions were converted into appeals by ordering certain directions to be followed in the matter

Appeals were disposed of, in circumstances.

Representation for proforma promotion filed by the respondent/employee before appellant-department was rejected, whereas, the appeal preferred before Federal Service Tribunal was accepted

Contention of the department was that respondent never challenged the DPC decision for 2015 to 2019 and as those orders of the supersession still subsist, he could not now claim ante-dated or proforma promotion

Validity

Once the adverse remarks were expunged by the Tribunal and that finding was upheld by the Supreme Court, they ceased to exist in the service record ab initio and in the eyes of law they were deemed never to have been recorded, thus, any supersession resting entirely on those remarks collapsed with them

Orders of supersession were derivative and consequential in nature; once their premise was extinguished, they stood denuded of all legal effect

Non-challenge to such supersession orders, therefore, carried no independent significance

One cannot be compelled to challenge a shadow of decision whose substratum has been judicially erased

Insistence that the respondent should have separately impugned those orders amounts to requiring a meaningless formality; an exercise in futility that the law does not demand

Leave to appeal was refused

Civil petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

The case of the petitioners, who were then Sub-Inspectors, was that the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Inspector (BPS-16) should have been considered from August, 2015 when 25 vacancies to the post of 'inspector' occurred

Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was delayed till 2017 due to stay orders

Upon vacation of stay orders petitioners were promoted to the post of inspectors

It was the case of the petitioners that they should have been considered for promotion w.e.f. August 2015

Held: The delay in the present case could not be regarded as justified

It was occasioned by litigation arising out of irregularities in the seniority list prepared by the department itself, which litigation was ultimately decided against the department

The stay orders, therefore, were a direct consequence of the department's own flawed exercise and not of any conduct attributable to the petitioners

In the present case, the petitioners were blameless, and the delay, spanning over two years, was excessive by any standard of reasonableness

To accept the department's argument would mean that even if such litigation dragged on for a decade or more, eligible officers would be deprived of promotion until the very end of their careers, thereby reducing the constitutional guarantee of fair consideration to a mere formality

Such an outcome could not be countenanced

The fair and lawful course, therefore, was to reckon the petitioners' promotion from the date the vacancies first arose in August 2015, notwithstanding the intervening delay

Impugned judgment passed by the service tribunal was set aside

Present petitions were converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

A civil servant's claim to promotion crystallizes the moment a vacancy within their quota arises, provided they meet the prescribed eligibility criteria

At that stage, a corresponding duty is cast upon the competent authority to consider the officer's case fairly and in good time

Administrative indecision, internal disputes, or managerial laxity cannot be pleaded as excuses to defer the process once a substantive vacancy exists

The failure to act amounts to arbitrariness and undermines the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which demands that civil servants be treated in accordance with established norms of fairness and predictability.

To describe the delay in promoting the employees as "justified" would, in effect, permit the administration to take advantage of its own wrong and visit innocent officers with the adverse consequences of disputes in which they had no role

This would be wholly inequitable and inconsistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which entitles civil servants to be considered for promotion as soon as vacancies arise.

The settled principle of public administration is that every sanctioned post exists to serve a functional need of the State, and must be filled within a reasonable time after falling vacant

Unless a post has been lawfully abolished, frozen pursuant to a demonstrable policy of fiscal constraint, or withheld due to overriding and transparent public exigencies, the administration is bound to proceed with filling it

Vacancies left un addressed foster ad-hocism, informal delegation, and opacity, which in turn opens the door to nepotism and favoritism

When a vacancy arises it must be filled without unjustified delay, for timely consideration is an essential incident of service and an element of fair treatment under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution.

"Back benefits", as discussed in present case, were confined to arrears of pay and other emoluments denied due to wrongful dismissal or removal.

Effect and scope stated.

Meaning and Scope.

Purpose and meaning.

Representation for proforma promotion filed by the respondent/employee before appellant-department was rejected, whereas, the appeal preferred before Federal Service Tribunal was accepted

Contention of the department was that respondent never challenged the DPC decision for 2015 to 2019 and as those orders of the supersession still subsist, he could not now claim ante-dated or proforma promotion

Validity

Once the adverse remarks were expunged by the Tribunal and that finding was upheld by the Supreme Court, they ceased to exist in the service record ab initio and in the eyes of law they were deemed never to have been recorded, thus, any supersession resting entirely on those remarks collapsed with them

Orders of supersession were derivative and consequential in nature; once their premise was extinguished, they stood denuded of all legal effect

Non-challenge to such supersession orders, therefore, carried no independent significance

One cannot be compelled to challenge a shadow of decision whose substratum has been judicially erased

Insistence that the respondent should have separately impugned those orders amounts to requiring a meaningless formality; an exercise in futility that the law does not demand

Leave to appeal was refused

Civil petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

At its core, the principle of proportionality requires that when an administrative authority exercises discretionary power, it must strike a fair balance between the adverse effects of its decision on the rights, liberties, or interests of individuals and the legitimate aim or purpose the decision seeks to achieve

A more refined version of the principle of proportionality analysis adopts a structured, four-stage test, requiring courts to address the following questions to determine whether an impugned measure is constitutionally or legally justifiable, which includes: (i) Legitimacy: Does the action pursue a legitimate objective recognized by law? (ii) Suitability (Rational Connection): Is the measure capable of achieving that objective, i.e., is there a rational nexus between the means employed and the aim pursued? (iii) Necessity: Could the same objective have been achieved through a less restrictive or less onerous alternative? and (iv) Proportionality stricto sensu (Balancing): Does the measure maintain a fair balance between the severity of its impact on the individual and the importance of the public interest it serves?

Moreover, Articles 4, 14 and 25 of the Constitution collectively impose a duty upon the courts to ensure that executive or disciplinary measures not only pursue lawful objectives but do so in a manner that is just, fair, and proportionate

In disciplinary jurisprudence, proportionality maintains a delicate balance between public and private rights

While civil servants are entitled to procedural fairness and protection from arbitrary sanctions, these rights must be balanced against the compelling public interest in maintaining the integrity and accountability of public institutions

The principle of proportionality at its most functional level ultimately hinges on a singular, decisive question: whether the interference with private rights is justified by a corresponding and weighty public interest

This balancing offers a structured framework for assessing the sustainability of disciplinary penalties

The penalty imposed must be evaluated not in isolation, but in relation to the degree of harm caused to the public interest and the severity of intrusion upon the private rights of the officer

A constitutionally and administratively sustainable penalty is one that serves a legitimate public objective without inflicting excessive or unnecessary harm upon individual rights

The test is not merely whether discipline is warranted, but whether the measure adopted strikes a fair and reasonable equilibrium between the legitimate aims of the institution and the human dignity of the individual

Accordingly, the principle of proportionality, in its clearest form may be said to rest on the following standard: The action taken achieves a necessary public goal without causing disproportionate harm to private interest

Furthermore, while proportionality strengthens constitutional adjudication when properly employed, its misuse can undermine the very values it seeks to uphold

A disproportionate decision may also violate the rule of law.

Exception to general principle under O.M. 1971, whereby domicile of a civil servant stands frozen upon entering civil service, has been carved out in the case of female officers who marry during service

Recognizing constitutional values of equality, dignity and realities of social mobility that accompany marital life, a limited concession is provided whereby a woman officer may, only once, adopt domicile of her husband if she seeks appointment to a post through direct recruitment

Such exception acknowledges that marriage often entails a change in residence and social identity and aims to accommodate such transitions without violating broader principle of domicile integrity

Such option is strictly a one-time concession in the entire service tenure of female officer

Once exercised, the new domicile (based on husband's domicile) stands frozen and remains immutable regardless of whether the officer is subsequently divorced, widowed, or remarries a person from another province

Such safeguard ensures that the exception does not evolve into an instrument of circumvention or manipulation and preserves the constitutional scheme of fair and equitable representation across the Federation.

The controversy arose from the petitioners' removal from service despite being appointed through a formal recruitment process and allegedly fulfilling all codal formalities

It was contended that although a list of 166 similarly appointed employees had been accepted and their salaries released pursuant to a consent order, the petitioners claimed they were also covered in that list but were not reinstated that two scrutiny reports were compiled indicating that the petitioners were not at fault and the responsibility lay with the ex-director, however, the department still issued show-cause notices and removed the petitioners from service; that the service tribunal failed to properly consider these facts and previous judgments/orders, including the verification of their credentials already deemed genuine

Held: The grievance, rather the contention, of the petitioners that they were not fully covered in the list of the 166 employees and their credentials were already scrutinized by the competent authority, was not considered properly before dismissing the service appeals

In order to thrash out and reconcile the controversy to some logical end, it was deemed most advantageous and expedient to constitute a three-member committee to scrutinize the cases of the present petitioners to assess whether they fell within the category of the aforesaid 166 employees and were thus entitled for restoration/appointment in service or not

The law officer along with officials present in court also assured that the committee would consider the credentials/antecedents of all the petitioners as well as the reports and the list of employees compiled earlier, with an independent application of mind, for reaching a just and proper conclusion in the matter

All civil petitions were converted into appeals by ordering certain directions to be followed in the matter

Appeals were disposed of, in circumstances.

The settled principle of public administration is that every sanctioned post exists to serve a functional need of the State, and must be filled within a reasonable time after falling vacant

Unless a post has been lawfully abolished, frozen pursuant to a demonstrable policy of fiscal constraint, or withheld due to overriding and transparent public exigencies, the administration is bound to proceed with filling it

Vacancies left un addressed foster ad-hocism, informal delegation, and opacity, which in turn opens the door to nepotism and favoritism

When a vacancy arises it must be filled without unjustified delay, for timely consideration is an essential incident of service and an element of fair treatment under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution.

To describe the delay in promoting the employees as "justified" would, in effect, permit the administration to take advantage of its own wrong and visit innocent officers with the adverse consequences of disputes in which they had no role

This would be wholly inequitable and inconsistent with the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which entitles civil servants to be considered for promotion as soon as vacancies arise.

A civil servant's claim to promotion crystallizes the moment a vacancy within their quota arises, provided they meet the prescribed eligibility criteria

At that stage, a corresponding duty is cast upon the competent authority to consider the officer's case fairly and in good time

Administrative indecision, internal disputes, or managerial laxity cannot be pleaded as excuses to defer the process once a substantive vacancy exists

The failure to act amounts to arbitrariness and undermines the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which demands that civil servants be treated in accordance with established norms of fairness and predictability.

The case of the petitioners, who were then Sub-Inspectors, was that the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Inspector (BPS-16) should have been considered from August, 2015 when 25 vacancies to the post of 'inspector' occurred

Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was delayed till 2017 due to stay orders

Upon vacation of stay orders petitioners were promoted to the post of inspectors

It was the case of the petitioners that they should have been considered for promotion w.e.f. August 2015

Held: The delay in the present case could not be regarded as justified

It was occasioned by litigation arising out of irregularities in the seniority list prepared by the department itself, which litigation was ultimately decided against the department

The stay orders, therefore, were a direct consequence of the department's own flawed exercise and not of any conduct attributable to the petitioners

In the present case, the petitioners were blameless, and the delay, spanning over two years, was excessive by any standard of reasonableness

To accept the department's argument would mean that even if such litigation dragged on for a decade or more, eligible officers would be deprived of promotion until the very end of their careers, thereby reducing the constitutional guarantee of fair consideration to a mere formality

Such an outcome could not be countenanced

The fair and lawful course, therefore, was to reckon the petitioners' promotion from the date the vacancies first arose in August 2015, notwithstanding the intervening delay

Impugned judgment passed by the service tribunal was set aside

Present petitions were converted into appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

"Back benefits", as discussed in present case, were confined to arrears of pay and other emoluments denied due to wrongful dismissal or removal.

Effect and scope stated.

Meaning and Scope.

Purpose and meaning.

Exception to general principle under O.M. 1971, whereby domicile of a civil servant stands frozen upon entering civil service, has been carved out in the case of female officers who marry during service

Recognizing constitutional values of equality, dignity and realities of social mobility that accompany marital life, a limited concession is provided whereby a woman officer may, only once, adopt domicile of her husband if she seeks appointment to a post through direct recruitment

Such exception acknowledges that marriage often entails a change in residence and social identity and aims to accommodate such transitions without violating broader principle of domicile integrity

Such option is strictly a one-time concession in the entire service tenure of female officer

Once exercised, the new domicile (based on husband's domicile) stands frozen and remains immutable regardless of whether the officer is subsequently divorced, widowed, or remarries a person from another province

Such safeguard ensures that the exception does not evolve into an instrument of circumvention or manipulation and preserves the constitutional scheme of fair and equitable representation across the Federation.

When a civil/public servant in response to a show-cause notice has specifically denied the charges and considering the nature of the charges, all those allegations require evidence, then it becomes incumbent upon the authority to order regular inquiry and in the given situation departure from a normal course does not reflect bona fide on the part of the authority.

Claim of the petitioners was that they were appointed in 2012 by the Education Department Govt. of Sindh, after fulfilling the codal formalities, however, they were not paid their monthly salaries, which led them to challenge the matter before the Service Tribunal by filing service appeal

Service Tribunal issued directions to the Education Department to scrutinize the petitioner's cases and after completing the codal formalities to release their salaries

Subsequently, the petitioners' cases were placed before the Scrutiny Committee and the Secretary, School Education Department , on the basis of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee, passed order issuing a list of eligible appointees for joining the service

Petitioners were not declared eligible during the scrutiny process

Admittedly, the petitioners were civil servants and matter related to terms and conditions of service i.e. the release of salaries, seniority and promotion

However, instead of challenging the findings of the Scrutiny Committee through a departmental appeal or a service appeal, they filed the instant petition before this/High Court for seeking relief for matters pertaining to the year 2012

Relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court

Petitioners had, on their own accord, availed the remedy by filing a service appeal before the Service Tribunal for the same relief

High Court in view of Art.212 of the Constitution lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matters, as the dispute essentially involves questions of law and fact which have already been decided

Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed.

Petitioner (Officer Inland Revenue) challenged the Fact Finding Inquiry Report recommending disciplinary proceeding alleging that ongoing disciplinary proceeding was tainted with mala fide

Arguments of the petitioner, invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, was that no final order was passed, hence, no department remedy was available

Validity

As per the Fact Finding Inquiry Report disciplinary action against the petitioner had been recommended together with other officials of the respondents-FBR, including Commissioners and Additional Commissioners ; which (the second set of proceeding) initiated by respondents-FBR eventually was under challenge before the concerned forum

Constitutional bar under Art.212 of the constitution will exclude judicial review jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, if the issue was about the terms and conditions of service of any civil servant

Argument of the petitioner (that no final order was passed, hence, no department remedy was available) was also not tenable, because, disciplinary proceeding being sub judice had not been concluded

No justification to interfere in the ongoing disciplinary proceeding was made out, however, competent authority shall conclude the disciplinary proceeding expeditiously, and should take into account the factors raised

Petition was disposed of.

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.

Pension is neither a privilege nor a matter of grace but a vested and enforceable right of an employee who has served the State in accordance with law.

Record showed that the petitioner had already benefited from a time-scale upgradation policy, which was designed to address the precise concern of stagnation

Granting the petitioner further individualized relief would amount to an enrichment beyond the policy's intent, creating preferential treatment rather than correcting an inequality

Thus, Petitioner's reliance on alleged comparators did not suffice

Constitutional equal protection was implicated only where similarly situated individuals are treated differently without any rational basis

In the present case, the determination of Committee on Upgradation that the petitioner' post had already been benefited and was thus ineligible for further upgradation, constituted a rational and policy-based justification for the decision

Thus, the Petitioner had not demonstrated any vested right to further upgradation

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

The question of upgradation of posts for civil servants is one that can be examined by the High Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, however, while exercising such jurisdiction, certain principles of law must necessarily be kept in view:-(i.) The foremost consideration is whether upgradation constitutes a vested right of a civil servant, enforceable through judicial intervention, or whether it remains a concession extended by the Government depending upon exigencies of service and availability of resources; (ii.) The second question is whether upgradation can be granted in favor of an individual on a person-specific basis, or whether the policy of upgradation must apply uniformly to a class or cadre of employees to avoid arbitrariness and favoritism ; (iii.) The third aspect relates to the domain of policymaking itself.

Upgradation of posts, being a matter intrinsically linked to administrative structure, financial implications and service requirements, ordinarily falls within the exclusive competence of the Government

Therefore, the role of the Court is not to substitute its wisdom for that of the executive, but only to examine whether such policy decisions are tainted with mala fides, arbitrariness, or discriminatory treatment in violation of constitutional guarantees

While the petitioner's credentials (advanced qualifications and long service) were commendable, they did not in themselves justify a judicial directive for post-reclassification

The authority to restructure posts lies squarely with the executive branch, and Courts are reluctant to intrude upon such policy matters absent a showing of clear illegality, arbitrariness, or unconstitutional discrimination

Petitioner failed to establish that the denial of her request was arbitrary or discriminatory

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Promotion or upgradation is not a vested right of any civil servant, rather it is a policy tool exercised by the Government to address service exigencies, restructure institutions, or alleviate stagnation in posts lacking promotional avenues

Distinction between promotion and upgradation was that "promotion" is a merit and seniority-based advancement, and "upgradation" is a policy-driven adjustment of posts for broad and systemic reasons

Upgradation is not to be conflated with promotion; it is a mechanism employed to address structural imbalances and cannot be claimed as an individual entitlement.

Appointing authority acting as Chairman instead of ex officio Member of Selection Board and making recommendation in violation of Rules

Issuance of advertisement by incompetent authority

Effect

Administrative misconduct and procedural irregularities in execution of selection process

Advertisement was issued by DEO (Male) for the posts of Moallim-ul-Quran and no such post was advertised by DEO (Female)/appointing authority

DEO (Male) of the concerned district, who was the appointing authority for Moallim-ul-Quran B-1 under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Elementary and Secondary Education Department Teaching Cadre Services Rules (Male), 2022, acted as Chairman Selection Committee for Moallim-ul-Quran and no one was associated being the representative of appointing authority as an ex officio Member of Section Committee as was required by R. 4(5) of the Rules, 1977

Summary to this effect forwarded by Chief Secretary of Azad Jammu and Kashmir to the Prime Minister of the State of Jammu and Kashmir also portrayed that an inquiry was conducted by the Chief Secretary in which it was found that selection process was liable to be scrutinized

Some disabled persons had been appointed without reserving/calculating any quota in the advertisement for the disabled persons

High Court found serious administrative misconduct in execution of statutory process, despite clear provisions of law and regulations

Responsible officers were found to have failed to discharge their duties in lawful and efficient manner

Whole selection process was declared to be anomalous, ab initio void and coram non judice, hence, stood extinguished

Respondents were directed to re-initiate the selection process from inception

Writ petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the handout, however during pendency, the appointment notification of respondent was issued

Petitioner did not assail the said notification separately, instead, did it by filing his first amendment application; said application was later withdrawn by him; later after period of over one and a half years, submitted second amendment; finally, writ was dismissed declining reliefs sought Held: Petitioner himself abandoned his claim by withdrawing the application

Furthermore, the claim that the handout impugned by the petitioner is the basic transaction and if declared illegal, would nullify subsequent actions, is flawed

After issuance of appointment notification, the recommendations of PSC merged into final notification and had no existence, hence, it was mandatory for the petitioner to challenge the appointment notification

Furthermore, the petitioner has taken contradictory stands; on one hand he claims that there was no requirement of challenging the appointment notification and on the other hand he is strongly pressing the application for amendment

Nobody can be allowed to blow hot and cold in one breath

Petitioner's conduct demonstrated acquiescence, waiver, and estoppel

No illegality or infirmity in the High Court's impugned judgment had been noticed

Petitioner failed to point out any substantial question of law warranting the grant of leave to appeal

Petition was dismissed.

Contention being that the High Court failed to address the legal points formulated at the time of passing in its admission order

Validity

Once the High Court concluded that the petitioner failed to challenge the appointment notification of respondent, which was the crux of the matter, there was no necessity to delve into other legal points

Courts are not supposed to adjudicate upon ancillary or academic points when the main issue in the case has been conclusively decided

No illegality or infirmity in the High Court's impugned judgment had been noticed

Petitioner failed to point out any substantial question of law warranting the grant of leave to appeal

Petition was dismissed.

Petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the handout, however, subsequently, the appointment notification of respondent was issued

Petitioner did not assail the said notification separately, instead did it by filing his first amendment application; said application was later withdrawn by him ; later after period of over one and a half years, submitted second amendment; finally, writ was dismissed declining reliefs sought

Held: Record revealed that the petitioner filed the writ petition on 11.07.2019, challenging the handout dated 14.06.2019

Subsequently, the appointment notification of respondent was issued on 22.08.2019.

Respondent attached the appointment notification with the written statement

Petitioner, despite being aware of said development failed to take immediate steps to challenge the said notification; instead, he remained mum for nearly three years before filing his first amendment application on 26.10.2022, however, said application was later withdrawn by him on 01.12.2022

Petitioner, once again, remained silent for an extended period of over one and a half years and finally submitting a second amendment application on 26.02.2024

Though an amendment can be allowed at any stage of proceedings, however, it is equally important to recognize that the doctrine of laches operates as a bar to claims when not pursued diligently

Laches is premised on the maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt which means that the law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights

Doctrine of laches is particularly relevant in cases where undue delay may prejudice the other party

In the present case, the petitioner's silence for a cumulative period of over four years, despite the clear knowledge of respondent's appointment, raises serious concerns about the petitioner's diligence and good faith in prosecuting his claim

Allowing the application filed by the petitioner would effectively permit him to challenge the appointment notification of respondent without providing any satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in raising this issue

A vested right stood accrued to respondent upon issuance of the appointment notification dated 22.08.2019, which was made in compliance with the recommendations of PSC which remained unchallenged by the petitioner; hence, the High Court has not committed any illegality while rejecting the petitioner's application for amendment

No illegality or infirmity in the High Court's impugned judgment had been noticed

Petitioner failed to point out any substantial question of law warranting the grant of leave to appeal

Petition was dismissed.

Petitioners (two candidates) were aggrieved of the handout by the Public Service Commission (PSC), whereby the contesting respondent was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (BPS-18)

Contention of the petitioners was that initially 17 candidates were shortlisted for interview and the name of the (contesting) respondent was not amongst them, so her participation in the interview and subsequent issuance of her appointment order was a manipulation in the selection process

Validity

Original record (award list, marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, academic qualifications and the interview) revealed that the respondent secured an aggregate of 66.96 marks, while the candidates ranked at 16 and 17 in the list i.e. the petitioners, herein, obtained 61.24 and 58.61 marks, respectively

Thus, the respondent had a higher merit position as compared to the candidates short listed for interview, thus, her inclusion in the interview for appointment against one of the posts, appeared to be in accordance with merit

Allegation of manipulation by the PSC was found to be devoid of substance

However, official respondents (the Director / Secretary PSC) admitted that it was failure not to include the name of private respondent in the shortlisted candidates due to an error on the part of the PSC

Such like mistakes are concerning, particularly for an institution like the PSC, which is entrusted with the critical responsibility of ensuring merit-based selection for public service positions

Error of such like nature, not only compromise the integrity of the recruitment process but also erode public confidence in the fairness and transparency of the PSC

Moreover, these lapses lead to an increase in litigation, as affected individuals seek to challenge the validity of the selection process, as was the situation in the present case

Thus, situation underscores the urgent need for the PSC to implement robust measures to prevent such errors in the future

Strengthening its procedures will help in restoring public trust and upholding the PSC's role as a reliable and impartial authority in public service recruitment

Maintaining the integrity of PSC is essential to ensure that merit and transparency remain the cornerstone of public sector appointments

No illegality was noticed in impugned judgments passed by the High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the petitioners/ candidates

Petition for leave to appeal was refused.

Contention of the official respondents was that the department had assigned the reasons for cancellation of the transfer notification in the objections/written statement submitted before the Service Tribunal

Validity

It was revealed from the departmental transfer cancellation notification that no reason, whatsoever, had been assigned/mentioned in the said notification for cancellation of the transfer notification within a short span of time i.e. 25 days

Reasons/justifications for cancellation of a lawful notification have to be mentioned in the cancellation notification rather than in the objections/written statement, therefore, said argument of the official respondents was repelled

No illegality or legal infirmity was noticed in the impugned order whereby the Service Tribunal, while admitting for regular hearing the appeal preferred by aggrieved officer respondent, suspended transfer cancellation order

Petition for leave to appeal was refused.

Practice of cancellation of the transfer notifications within a short span of time (i.e. after 25 days) without assigning any reason, on the face of it, was a malpractice and such orders/notifications cannot be protected by the Courts, therefore, the impugned departmental notification dated 11.09.2024 was prima facie a proof of exercise of powers in an injudicious manner and without proper application of mind

No illegality or legal infirmity was noticed in the impugned order whereby the Services Tribunal, while admitting for regular hearing the appeal preferred by aggrieved officer (respondent), suspended the transfer cancellation order

Petition for leave to appeal was refused.

Payment of pension is not only a legal obligation but also a fundamental right of retired employees, ensuring their financial security and dignity in their post-service years

Delay or denial of pensionary benefits creates significant hardship, especially for those who have spent the prime years of their lives serving in public offices

Timely disbursement of pension is critical in upholding the trust that employees place in the government or relevant authorities, assuring them that their contributions will be acknowledged and rewarded even after their retirement

Pension is a vital component of the social contract between the state and its citizens, fostering a sense of security for employees who have served the public and contributed to the welfare of society

Therefore, the prompt and regular payment of pension is not merely a financial transaction but a moral and social responsibility that must be fulfilled without delay or excuse.

Record revealed that the petitioner was initially appointed as Technical Expert Revenue (BS-18) Ehtesab Bureau, on contract basis on the recommendations of Selection Committee for a period of one year ; later on, his contract appointment was extended twice (for period(s) of one year and two years respectively)

Admittedly, the contract appointment of the petitioner was made under Cl. IV(iii) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Contract Appointment Policy, 2006, according to the which (clause), the service of a contract employee could be terminated on one month's notice or on month's pay in lieu thereof, by either side without assigning any reason

Thus, as the petitioner was a temporary/contractual employee in the department as mentioned in his appointment notification his service could be terminated at any time by the competent authority in the light of the said contractual policy

In the present case, the authority removed him after paying one month's salary which was in accordance with the contractual policy, therefore, in view of the above reasoning, he could not be restored in his service

High Court had not committed any illegality by dismissing the writ petition filed by petitioner in limine

No question of law and public importance was involved in the present petition which was a pre-requisite for grant of leave

Leave could not be granted in routine just to create a false hope in the mind of a litigant

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.