Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 1024 2026 SLD 1024
Islamabad High Court
W.P.No.868 of 2017
Presented By: (MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB) JUDGE
Date of Hearing: 20.04.2018 Petitioners by: Ch. Saifullah Warraich, Yasir Rahim Bhatti, Arshad Mehmood, Mirza Waqas Qayyum, Raja Shahzad Javed and Muhammad Waqas Chatha , Advocates.
Respondents by: Mr. Rashid Hafeez, learned Deputy Attorney-General. Ms. Sitwat Jehangir, learned Standing Counsel. Mr. Javed Atta, Prosecutor Sub- Inspector.

Muhammad Yaar Nadeem and others

VERSUS

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and others.

Law: Constitution of Pakistan

Section: 199, 212(2). 240, 242, 4, 8, 9

 Summary The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by police officials challenging cancellation of their out-of-turn promotions. The Court held that since the petitioners are civil servants, their service matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, the High Court cannot entertain such petitions—even if fundamental rights or mala fide are alleged. Therefore, the petitions were not maintainable.  Tagline “Service matters of civil servants lie exclusively before Service Tribunals; High Court jurisdiction is barred.” ORDER; MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, J:- Through this judgment, I propose to decide writ petitions No.868/2017, 429/2017, 431/2017, 494/2017, 974/2017, 1915/2017, 2064/2017, 2131/2017, 2134/2017, 2275/2017, 2475/2017, 2516/2017, 2575/2017, 2586/2017, 2602/2017, 3046/2017, 3047/2017, 3053/2017, 3133/2017, 3198/2017, 3366/2017, 3411/2017, 3527/2017, 4252/2017 and 561/2018, since they entail common questions of law and fact. Through the said writ petitions, the petitioners, who are serving in the Islamabad Capital Territory Police, impugn orders passed by the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Islamabad, whereby the “out of turn promotions” granted to the petitioners during their service, were cancelled/withdrawn, resulting in their reversion. The position taken by the petitioners in their writ petitions was that the petitioners had performed their duties with full devotion and honesty; that the petitioners were promoted after their credentials and performance were scrutinized and evaluated; that the reversion orders passed against the petitioners are based on misinterpretation of the law laid down in the judgments reported as 2013 SCMR 1752 and 2015 SCMR 456; that vide order dated 20.06.2016, this Court had already allowed writ…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register