Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 4553 2025 SLD 4553 = 2025 PLC 221
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.D-5060 of 2023, decided on 21st August, 2024.
Before Zafar Ahmed Rajput and Rashida Asad, JJ
Malik Naeem Iqbal for Petitioner. Shah Hussain Asstt. Attorney General for Pakistan for
Respondent No.1. Khalid Mahmood Siddiqui for
Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
Respondents Nos.4 and 5 in person

Capt. MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN

VERSUS

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary for Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 4 others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations, 2011

Section: II

Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations, 2011 [as amended in 2013], Sched. II---Service Cadre of Port Qasim Authority (PQA)--Judicial review of administrative actions---Scope---Locus standi---Departure from seniority based postings---Violation of departmental practice---Legitimate expectancy, principle of---Contention of the petitioner was that his juniors had been posted to higher posts but as per departmental practice petitioner being the senior most officer was a legitimate expectant for the higher post---Validity---Petitioner was much senior to respondents, who were holding managerial posts of Dock Master and Deputy Harbour Master, while the petitioner was posted as Pilot/Tug Commander---As per past practice the seniors in rank had been posted on the said positions, thus, petitioner had legitimate expectation of being treated in the same way owing to uniform practice and policy made and adopted by the administrative authorities of the PQA, and since such legitimate expectation had been eliminated, it had afforded locus standi to petitioner to challenge the administrative action of the respondents through the constitutional petition---PQA Service Regulations itself provided a pattern and design of posts in ranks one to six under Operations Cadre (Marine Operations) of PQA, which were to be assigned as per seniority roll; otherwise, it would cast doubts over the fair and square acts of the respondents in all matters encompassing legitimate expectation, thus, High Court repelled the plea of the respondents that past practice could never substitute codified law--Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances, with directions to respondents to assign a post to petitioner as per seniority roll.Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen and others v. Pakistan Bar Council and others PLD2017 SC 231; Dr. Muhammad Saleem v. Government of Baluchistan and others 2023 SCMR 2119 and Uzma Manzoor and others v. Vice-Chancellor Khushal Khan Khattak University, Karak and others 2022 SCMR 694 distinguished.Uzma Manzoor v. Vice-Chancellor, Khushal Khan Khattak University 2022 SCMR 694 and National Database and Registration Authority…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register