| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 1698 2025 SLD 1698 = 2024 LHC 6036 |
W.P. No. 62298/2024
ASIM HAFEEZ, J.
Date of hearing 18.12.2024 For petitioners M/s Allah Nawaz Khan Khosa, Muhammad Akbar Warraich, Muhammad Amin Sandhila, Nadeem Shaukat Minhas, Arif Hussain Cheema, Andaz Jillani Khan, Malik Muhammad Ashfaq, Muhammad Akhtar, Rana Shahzad Khalid, Shafiq Ahmad, Rana Khalid Ishaq, Muhammad Arshad Naseer, Habib Ullah, Shahzad Farooq, Umer Draz, Naveed Khalid, Syed Mujahid Naqvi, Falak Sher Khan, Inzamam Aslam, Malik Rizwan Khalid Awan, Aliza Mukhtar, Najum Saqib, Syed Ali Raza, Ch. Zeeshan Afzaal Hashmi, Sajid Hussain Qureshi, Muhammad Nafees Shad, Saeed-ur- Rehman, Syed Alamdar Hussain, Mian Abdul Sattar Ijaz, Zafar Iqbal Chohan, Ghulam Farid Sanotra, Gulzar Hussain, Farrukh Shahzad Kamboh, Advocates. For the
Respondents Ms. Shazeen Abdullah, Additional Advocate General Punjab. Mr. Muhammad Tayyab Gill, Advocate for respondent No.3/Fatima Jinnah Medical University. Muhammad Abrar Khan, Law officer, D.G., HS, Punjab Muhammad Haseeb Amjad, S.D.O., Buildings Kamalia.
Syed Muhammad Ali Raza Shah.
VERSUS
Govt. of Punjab, etc.
Law: Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974
Section: 1974, 17-A
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1), 27, 189
Summary of the Judgment:Accrued Rights
This judgment addresses multiple connected constitutional petitions filed by individuals claiming entitlement to appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The core issue is whether their right to be considered for appointment survived the omission of Rule 17-A via Notification dated 24.07.2024.
Key Findings:
Prospective Omission: The Court reaffirmed that since Rule 17-A was omitted without retrospective effect, any rights accrued before 24.07.2024 must be honored.
General Post Office Case Distinction: The Supreme Court judgment in General Post Office, Islamabad v. Muhammad Jalal declared such appointment policies discriminatory and violative of merit. However, since Rule 17-A had already been omitted before this judgment, the Supreme Court declaration does not extend to it.