Civil Servant

Appellants, after regularization, continued to discharge their duties without adverse service entries or disciplinary blemishes, but they were summarily terminated through cyclostyled orders, which referred to the departmental directive alleging large-scale irregularities in appointments

Said termination orders were issued without the issuance of Show-Cause Notices, without the framing of precise charges and without initiation of any formal inquiry under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

The disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained on the basis of generalized administrative conclusions or institutional suspicion in the absence of individualized inquiry and concrete evidence

Thus, the impugned disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by serious violations of statutory provisions, due process and principles of natural justice

Punjab Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned orders and reinstated appellants into service while the matter was remanded to the competent authority to conduct de novo inquiry proceedings, strictly in accordance with law

Appeals were allowed accordingly.

Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, provides a mandatory procedural framework for imposing disciplinary penalties on civil servants, which mandates the issuance of a charge sheet, appointment of an impartial inquiry officer, the right to defend against allegations, and issuance of a speaking order grounded in evidence, however in the present case, none of said statutory safeguards were observed

Appellants were not served with any charge sheet, no inquiry officer was appointed and no formal inquiry was conducted

The omission to comply with said mandatory procedural requirements constituted a fatal illegality and rendered the entire proceedings null and void

Article 10-A of the Constitution enshrines the right process as an inviolable fundamental right

Thus , the impugned disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by serious violations of statutory provisions, constitutional guarantees, due process and principles of natural justice

Punjab Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned orders and reinstated appellants into service while the matter was remanded to the competent authority to conduct denovo inquiry proceedings, strictly in accordance with law

Appeals were allowed accordingly.

Remedy available to an aggrieved civil servant is to approach the Balochistan Service Tribunal through filing a service appeal under S.4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974

Date of birth of a serving public servant in his/her service record or service book is one of the terms and conditions of his/her service and matter pertaining to change and alteration of such date of birth amounts to service matter within the purview of Art. 212(1)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, which placed an embargo upon the jurisdiction of other ordinary Courts and authorities such as Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) to entertain service matters

Constitutional petition was disposed of.

Petitioners (having been recruited against different positions lying vacant in the Health Department/respondents) sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents for release and payment of their due salaries for last three years or so

Validity

Petitioners, admittedly, were initially recruited against different positions lying vacant in the respondents /Health Department; they submitted their respective joining reports and started performing official duties

Petitioners were, thus, members of civil service of the Province (of Balochistan) and held civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Province and therefore, for all intents and purposes, were civil servants within the meaning of S. 2 subsection (1), clause (b) of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 ('the Act 1974')

Petitioners claimed payment of monthly pays

Like any other term and condition of service of a civil servant, pay is likewise a term and condition of service of a person in the service of the Province of Balochistan

According to Preamble of the Act, 1974, said piece of legislation was enacted to regulate by law the appointment of persons to and the terms and conditions of service of persons in the service of Balochistan and to provide for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto

Terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in the service of the Province of Balochistan are contained in Chapter II of the Act, 1974 and the Rules framed thereunder

As S.17 of the Act, 1974, relates to the term 'pay', therefore, a civil servant in the service of the Province of Balochistan, aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate made by Departmental Authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may prefer an appeal to the Balochistan Service Tribunal established under Art.212(1) of the Constitution read with S. 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974

Article 212(2) of the Constitution imposes a complete clog on the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution where a matter relates to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in the service of the Province of Balochistan

Article 199 of the Constitution starts with an expression i.e. 'subject to the Constitution' whereas, Art. 212(1) thereof with an obstante clause i.e. 'notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained'

Therefore, Art.212(1) of the Constitution supersedes Art. 199(1) of Constitution in respect of a matter relating to the terms and conditions of a civil servant

Since 'pay' is a term and condition of the service of the petitioners therefore, they should have preferred service appeal before the Balochistan Service Tribunal after exhausting the remedy of a department appeal

High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution could not exercise jurisdiction in respect of the grievance of petitioners in relation to their monthly pay

Petitioners were civil servants and their alleged grievance related to the terms and conditions of their service, therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition was barred by Art.175(2) read with Art. 212(2) of the Constitution

Balochistan Service Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the alleged grievance of the petitioners

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Additional charge of a Project Director does not fall within the scope of terms and conditions of "Civil Servant" as defined under S. 5(1) of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022

Consequently, appellant in the capacity of additional charge did not qualify as civil servant

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Combined reading of Ss. 2(1)(i), 2(1)(d), 5 & 23 of the National Assembly Secretariat Employees Act, 2018, clearly stipulated that employees of National Assembly Secretariat were civil servants and their terms of service were the same as those of civil servants in the corresponding posts or Basic Pay Scale

If any employee had grievance with respect to the terms and conditions of service, he shall have the remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal in the light of Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973

Prayers made in the petition fell within the "terms and conditions of service" and were covered under Ss. 5 & 23 of the National Assembly Secretariat Employees Act, 2018 hence, constitutional petition was not maintainable

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Civil servant on unconditional reinstatement in service was to be given all back benefits and the only exception justifying part withholding of back benefits could be that he accepted gainful employment/engaged in profitable business during the intervening period

In case, the dismissal/removal of a civil servant was declared illegal for a defect in disciplinary proceedings without attending to the merits of the case, the entitlement to back benefits may be put off till the inquiry was conducted in the matter finally determining the fault of the civil servant

In case, where there was some fault of the civil servant, including a situation where concession of reinstatement was extended to the civil servant while applying leniency or compassion or proportionality as standard and where penalty was modified but not wiped off in a way that the civil servant was restored to his position, he may be denied a portion of back benefits/back pay, while maintaining a proportion between the gravity of the fault of the civil servant and special/extenuating circumstances of the case.

Civil servant on unconditional reinstatement in service was to be given all back benefits and the only exception justifying part withholding of back benefits could be that he accepted gainful employment/engaged in profitable business during the intervening period

In case, the dismissal/removal of a civil servant was declared illegal for a defect in disciplinary proceedings without attending to the merits of the case, the entitlement to back benefits may be put off till the inquiry was conducted in the matter finally determining the fault of the civil servant

In case, where there was some fault of the civil servant, including a situation where concession of reinstatement was extended to the civil servant while applying leniency or compassion or proportionality as standard and where penalty was modified but not wiped off in a way that the civil servant was restored to his position, he may be denied a portion of back benefits/back pay, while maintaining a proportion between the gravity of the fault of the civil servant and special/extenuating circumstances of the case.

Date of birth of a civil servant once recorded in his service book and other service record at the time of his entry into the Government service could not be changed, except where an error occurred in recording the correct date of birth on account of a clerical error or in accordance with the exceptions provided in the Rules themselves.

Date of birth of a civil servant once recorded in his service book and other service record at the time of his entry into the Government service could not be changed, except where an error occurred in recording the correct date of birth on account of a clerical error or in accordance with the exceptions provided in the Rules themselves.

In order to improve governance it is necessary that independent, impartial and professional status of civil service as an institution is restored

Civil servants are backbone of system and have to be protected against injustices particularly political victimization enabling them to deliver to best of their abilities without any fear or favour

Civil servants have to be reassured that they are not subservient to political executives and are under obligation to remain compliant with the Constitution and law.

In order to improve governance it is necessary that independent, impartial and professional status of civil service as an institution is restored

Civil servants are backbone of system and have to be protected against injustices particularly political victimization enabling them to deliver to best of their abilities without any fear or favour

Civil servants have to be reassured that they are not subservient to political executives and are under obligation to remain compliant with the Constitution and law.

Contention of petitioner was that his actual date of birth was 08-10-1961 instead of 08-10-1959 and being a retired employee he was not a civil servant

Validity

Legislature had created Service Tribunals for the purpose of adjudication of matters relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servants

Jurisdiction of all other Courts with regard to matters of terms and conditions of service had been barred under Art.212 of the Constitution

Person who remained a civil servant did include a retired employee

Retired employees had not been ousted from agitating their claims with regard to terms and conditions of their service before Service Tribunal

Petitioner being a civil servant was barred to agitate his claim before High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution

Matter of date of birth was relating to the terms and conditions of service and High Court could not adjudicate upon the same

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed, in circumstances.

Transferred employees of T&T Department became employees of the Corporation and then of the Company, but they were not "civil servants" anymore, however, terms and conditions of their services under Ss.13 & 9(2) of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991 and Ss.35(2) & 36(1) and (2) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 were protected and none of the terms and conditions could be varied to their disadvantage, which were statutory as provided in Ss. 3 to 22 of Civil Servants Act, 1973 and in case of violation, such employees could avail remedy by way of filing petition under Art.199 of the Constitution.

Matter of terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Frontier Constabulary, were in the first place regulated by the Frontier Constabulary Act, 1915, and elaborated pursuant thereto by the Frontier Constabulary Rules, 1958

Test laid down in Art. 240(a) of the Constitution for determining whether an employee was a civil servant required that the appointment to and the terms and conditions of service of posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation and of a service of Pakistan shall be determined "by or under an Act of" Parliament

Expression "by or under" in Art. 240(a) of the Constitution authorized the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant to be provided both by statute or by statutory rules

Provision made in the Frontier Constabulary Act, 1915, and the Frontier Constabulary Rules, 1958, therefore, satisfied the Art. 240(a) test

Second crucial test for determining whether a person qualified as a member of a service of Pakistan and therefore as a civil servant, was that the civil post he held must bear connection with the affairs of the Federation, including any such post connected with the Defence

Under S. 3 and S. 3A of the Frontier Constabulary Act, 1915, the employees of Frontier Constabulary, inter alia, performed functions for the better protection and administration of the frontiers of Pakistan

Performance of such duties and functions was clearly in connection with the affairs of the Federation of Pakistan because these were rendered to protect the solidarity, integrity and law and order in Pakistan

Employees of Frontier Constabulary were, thus, civil servants.

Contention of petitioner-employee at the time of retirement was that his date of birth was 05-01-1958 in stead of 31-05-1953

Validity

Petitioner-employee filed suit for correction of his date of birth but he did not array his parent department as defendant in the same which was a requirement under the law

Petitioner-employee remained silent with regard to his entries in the service book as well as CNIC for about three decades

Date of birth of employee could be corrected within two years from the date of initial appointment

Decree of civil court obtained by the petitioner-employee with regard to his age was not binding or applicable to the government department as the department had not been arrayed in the proceedings before civil court

Correction in the date of birth of civil servant could not be allowed at the stage of retirement

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Forest Development Corporation retired its employees under "Golden Hand Shake Policy" and were re-employed on contract basis for completion of remaining and ongoing activities of the Corporation

Employees sought regularization of their service under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009

Validity

Forest Development Corporation had recruited ex-employees on contract basis for completion of remaining and ongoing activities of the Corporation on fix pay

Petitioners were employees of Corporation on regular basis and they had availed the option of "Golden Hand Shake" by receiving the retirement benefits

Contractual employment was given as a matter of grace to the petitioners

Petitioners were not "civil servants" and they could not be given the benefit of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009

Prayer of petitioners was not tenable and their services could not be regularized under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

As per R. 8(4) of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964, it was responsibility of the civil servant to undergo 6 months' training and appear in required qualifying exams within 15 months, to earn confirmation to his post

In terms of R. 5 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Departmental Examinations) Rules, 1978, it was not the duty of the controlling/ appointing authority to issue any reminder, explanation call or show cause notice etc. directing any civil servant to appear in the qualifying exams.

Rule 5(2) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Departmental Examinations) Rules, 1978 cast responsibility on the shoulder of the civil servant desiring to appear in the examination to give intimation in a prescribed manner to the examining authority directly or through appointing authority not later than 15 days before the date scheduled for such examination

Controlling/appointing authority could not be burdened with the responsibility for issuing any reminder, explanation call, show cause notice, etc directing a civil servant to appear in examination to qualify.

Consequence for not qualifying the required exams per R. 8(4) of Executive Branch Rules, 1964 was that the civil servant, so appointed shall not be confirmed to the appointed post unless he qualified the prescribed examination.

Contention of the petitioner civil servant was that no consultation was made with the parent department before sending him back to his parent department

Validity

Purpose of consultation was that the officer who was being sent back to his parent department, would not face hardships and the department shall adjust him in an appropriate manner

Notification for sending the petitioner back to his parent department was issued by the Services and General Administration Department and in compliance of said order the petitioner had reported back to his parent department

Civil Servant could not claim that he shall remain on deputation on a particular- post without consent of the borrowing department

Under the deputation policy, the period of deputation of a civil servant shall not exceed five years

Initially the period of deputation might be three years and after completion of three years' period the Government servant was required to serve in his parent Department for a minimum period of two years; thereafter he could again be sent on deputation; although, the Government had authority to extend the period of one year but before proceeding on deputation for second time it was mandatory that a civil servant shall serve in his parent department for a minimum period of two years

Period of deputation could not be extended without sending the civil servant back to his parent department

If the officer was on deputation to another department and he created hardships in smooth functioning of that Department, then it was the prerogative of the department to send the officer back to his parent Department before completion of the period as laid down in clause (iv) of the Deputation Policy dated 19-12-1979

Department was justified in sending the petitioner back to his parent department

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Civil Servant could not seek alteration in his date of birth at the verge of his retirement.

Competent Authority by resorting to S. 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, passed orders of absorption of civil servants/government servants/employees of autonomous bodies, semi-autonomous bodies and corporations, and granted them back-dated seniority besides out of turn promotions

Legality

Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, was an enabling provision and conferred residuary powers upon the competent authority, to redress the grievance of an individual in a hardship case

Competent Authority under S. 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, could grant benefit to an individual if it considered it just and equitable, without offending and impairing the statutory rights of other civil servants/employees

Competent Authority could exercise powers under S. 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, by relaxing rules, if there was a vacuum in law, but such powers could not be exercised under the garb of the term "Relaxation of Rules" with the intent to bye-pass the mandate of law for extending favours to a person or an individual, offending and impairing the statutory rights of other civil servants

Competent Authority, by an executive order, could not frame Rules in exercise of powers under S. 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973

Authority conferred under S. 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, was confined to hardship cases, without negating the vested rights of the other civil servants and/or causing prejudice to their interests

Exercise of powers under S. 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, by the Competent Authority, in the present case, travelled beyond the scheme of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973

Review petition was dismissed accordingly.

Question as to whether a civil servant could approach the (Sindh) High Court in a suit or in a constitutional petition in relation to the terms and conditions of his service

Civil and constitutional jurisdictions would not lie in respect of the suits or petitions filed with regard to the terms and conditions of civil servants

Section 3(2) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 provided that the Tribunal shall have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including the disciplinary matters

Jurisdiction of all other courts was barred by the provisions of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, read with Art. 212 of the Constitution

All civil courts, including a Judge (in Chambers) of High Court of Sindh, exercising jurisdiction on the original side as a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, could not entertain a civil suit of a civil servant relating to the terms and conditions of his service

Article 212 of the Constitution ousted the jurisdiction of High Courts and civil courts in respect of the matters pertaining to terms and conditions of civil servants

Provisions of Art. 212 of the Constitution did not confer a concurrent jurisdiction to civil courts, High Courts and Tribunals

Ouster of jurisdiction contemplated under the Art. 212 of the Constitution was a constitutional command, and, therefore, of necessity restricted the jurisdiction of civil courts and High Courts on the subject, which squarely fell within the exclusive domain of Service Tribunals

Exercise of jurisdiction by way of suit and constitutional petition filed by a civil servant with regard to his terms and conditions of service was violative of Arts. 175, 212 & 240 of the Constitution and the law

Review petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner, who was an employee of the Inter Services Intelligence, enjoyed the status of civil servant in terms of S.2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973

Appointment letter of petitioner had also been issued under the said Act and the proper forum for redressal of his grievance was the Federal Service Tribunal.

Petitioners possessing degrees of M.Sc. Chemical Engineering and M.Sc. Chemical Technology claimed the grant of special WAPDA allowance which was extended to other categories of employees working in WAPDA and power companies

Department refused the grant of allowance on the plea that such allowance was restricted to engineering cadres having registered with Pakistan Engineering Council only therefore no discrimination could be claimed on such basis

Validity

Benefit of special allowance had been extended to all the officers of BS-17 and above working in Engineering, Finance, Accounts, Costing and Audit, Administration and Human Resources Cadres of WAPDA and related power companies

Petitioners' had also possessed equivalent educational qualification which was made basis for grant of special allowance

Extending an additional allowance to the officers of one cadre and denying to the other cadre in the same level of skill and responsibilities having equal educational qualification amounted to nothing but discrimination

Petitioners possessing equal qualification, level of skill and respondents could not be discriminated

Petitioners were also entitled to the benefit of special WAPDA allowance

Constitutional petition was allowed.

Disputes relating to the terms and conditions of the civil servants were given exclusively within the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Writ petition was dismissed.

Deputationist cannot remain on deputation for an indefinite period or stipulated period in accordance with his/her own whims and wishes.

Despite definition of "civil servant" given in S.2(b) of Punjab Public Defenders Service Ordinance, 2007, the Chief Public Defender etc. would be deemed as public servants/civil servants

`Civil servant' means a person who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province

Employees of Punjab Public Defenders Service are going to hold posts in connection with the affairs of the Province of Punjab, therefore, provisions of S.4 of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, are fully applicable.

Issuance of show cause to civil servant under Ss.3(2)(b) & 5(5) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001

Writ petition by civil servant challenging vires of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Act, 2001 and Azad Jammu and Kashmir Removal from Service (Special Powers) Act, 2001

Maintainability

Service Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear appeal only against final order of departmental authority and while hearing such appeal could look into vires of the rules made by departmental authority

Laws/Acts passed by Legislature would not fall in definition of orders passed by departmental authority

Laws/Acts passed by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council were neither orders nor passed by departmental authority, thus, Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to look into vires thereof

Had penalty been imposed on civil servant by departmental authority after interpreting the rules, then High Court would not have jurisdiction, rather Service Tribunal would have jurisdiction to decide main controversy including vires of the rules

Directions regarding nullification of Laws/Acts dealing with service matters could be sought from High Court by filing writ petition

Writ petition filed by civil servant was maintainable

Principles.

Seniority of a civil servant is a vested right.

Performance of civil servant could not be assessed only on basis of ACR.

Appointment and seniority are two different things and delayed appointment of the Civil Servants cannot therefore affect appeal their right to seniority in accordance with Rules.

Work-charged employees employed by Irrigation Department were not covered by definition of civil servant as given in S.2(1)(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973.

Work-charged employees employed by Irrigation Department were not covered by definition of civil servant as given in S.2(1)(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973.

‘Selection’ does not mean ‘appointment’.

'Civil servant' has been defined as a person who is a member of an All-Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the Federation, or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, including any such post connected with defence.

Petitioner who was serving as Professor and Head of the Department was transferred and relegated to the post of O.S.D and respondent was appointed in his place

Petitioner in his Constitutional petition had sought declaration that said orders and all subsequent actions of the Authority were illegal, arbitrary, void and ineffective to the right of petitioner

Validity

Employees of the organisation had been declared to be civil servants amenable to the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Petitioner being a civil servant, High Court had no jurisdiction in his case in view of bar contained under Art.212 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973),

Persons who belonged to the category of the persons who were declared as "civil servants" under S.2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, for the purpose of availing of the remedy before the Service Tribunal, could not become "civil servants" within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973, in the absence of a corresponding amendment in the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

Civil servant who was appointed on temporary basis was compulsorily retired from service on account of unauthorised absence from duty after rendering service for more than eleven years

If period of unauthorised absence from duty was deducted, total period of service of civil servant would come to nine years and sixteen days

Regulation, 371-A of Civil Service Regulations, provided that Government servant who had rendered more than five years' continuous temporary service would count said service for purpose of pension or gratuity excluding broken period of temporary service, if any, rendered previously

Civil servant who had rendered service tier more than nine years, could count his said temporary service for purposes of his pension

Civil servant, in circumstances, was entitled to pensionary benefits.

Persons rendering services in body corporate owned by Government or by private sector and if their rights were secured and guaranteed under law, then they could not be interchanged for the word "civil servant" or for that matter deemed to be a civil servant

Secured and guaranteed rights of workmen in a Corporation could not be made redundant or without any legal effect by deeming them to be civil servants

Definition of civil servant given in S.2(1)(b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 was to be read in respect of employees of body corporate owned by Federal Government who were not workmen employed in body corporate owned by Government.

Promotees of the same year would take precedence of matter of seniority over those joining on initial recruitment in the same year irrespective of their date of promotion or joining.

Service Tribunal reduced major penalty of removal from service to minor penalty of withholding two annual increments without accumulative effect

Validity

Contention raised on behalf of Authority was that civil servants were members of disciplined force and they had been proceeded against in proper manner following procedure provided under Police Rules and that they having admitted disobedience, Service Tribunal was not legally correct to interfere with order in question, in absence of any legal infirmity going to the root of the case and prejudicial to civil servants; that proceedings were conducted under R. 8, North-West Frontier Province Police Rules, 1975; that Service Tribunal had wrongly assumed such proceedings to be under Rr. 5 & 6, North-West Frontier Province Police Rules, 1975 although said Rules were not applicable to the proceedings in question; and that in case any irregularity affecting defence of civil servants was committed, proper course for Service Tribunal was to have remanded case for fresh inquiry in accordance with Police Rules, 1975

Leave to appeal was granted to consider contentions raised by the Authority

Right to every individual had been given under Art. 4 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, to be dealt with in accordance with law and where law had not been correctly or properly observed, it would be a proper case for interference by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction

Petitioner though had no vested right to promotion but had a right to be considered alongwith other equally placed persons and case of all such persons should have been placed before Departmental Selection Committee

Such legal procedure having not been adopted in case of petitioner and one adopted for promotion of opposing petitioner being illegal, petitioner was left with no other remedy, but to approach High Court

High Court, in circumstances, had rightly exercised its Constitutional jurisdiction in case of petitioner.

Petitioner had merit to be appointed as P.T.C. Teacher but officials concerned considered her marks in Matric which she had previously secured (439 out of 850) in Matriculation Examination and thereby ignored her

Respondents admitted that petitioner had improved her marks and had secured (511 out of 850 marks) entitling her to be appointed as P.T.C. Teacher and that enquiry was being conducted against delinquent officials

Respondents had admitted that had her improved marks been placed before 1999 Appointing Authority, she would have been at Serial No. 11 in 20 P.T.C. Teachers who were appointed

Matriculation Certificate indicating improved marks was available on file of respondent Department

Injustice was brought to notice of respondents within the month of appointments made, but concerned officials for mala fide reasons did nothing to undo wrong done to petitioner

Deputy Commissioner of concerned district had also conducted inquiry and found petitioner entitled to post in question; he had also ordered rectification of error/mistake as also initiating proceedings against delinquent officials

Education Department was burdened with cost of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) which would be paid to petitioner as compensation

Copy of judgment was ordered to be sent to Education Secretary for initiating disciplinary action against delinquent officials and for making payment to petitioner within ten days

Provisions of Art. 212(2) of the Constitution does not envisage concurrent jurisdiction of the Civil Court and Service Tribunal

Jurisdiction vested in Civil Court in respect of terms and conditions of service of civil servant is mutually exclusive, whereas that of Service Tribunal is totally outside the jurisdiction of Civil Court including the High Court.

Civil servant was entitled for ante-dation of his promotion from the date when in 1985 he was due for promotion in Grade-19

Civil servant's juniors having been promoted, instead of passing order of deferment he was entitled for promotion from the date when his original batchmates were promoted.

Such period, in service matter, could be treated as sufficient laches to prevent civil servant from raising grievance at such belated stage

Grievance of civil servant for reinstatement in service, related to terms and conditions of his service for which there was proper forum provided for under the law

Jurisdiction of High Court was specifically barred in such matter

Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances.

Work-charged employees employed by Pakistan Public Works Department were not covered by the definition of civil servants as given in S. 2(i)(b) of the Act.

Non-supply -of the inquiry report to the accused officer to enable him to offer his explanation with regard to adverse finding recorded by the inquiry officer amounted to denial of providing him reasonable opportunity of defence.

Civil servant did not lodge any protest until 1985, when she filed appeal, wherein it was held that her belated grievance could not be looked into against promotion of rival civil servant

Civil servant, thus, did not have a case of seniority to succeed.