| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1439 = 2026 SLD 1439 |
Federal Constitution Court of Pakistan
C.P.L.A. No.491-P of 2022 (On appeal from judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 1.4.2022 passed in Writ Petition 325-P of 2021)
Presented By: Justice Ali Baqar Najafi Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah
For the petitioners: Mr. Shah Faisal Ilyas, Additional Advocate General, KP
Respondents: N.R. Date of hearing: 24.3.2026
C.P.L.A. No.491-P of 2022 (On appeal from judgment of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar dated 1.4.2022 passed in Writ Petition 325-P of 2021)
Presented By: Justice Ali Baqar Najafi Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah
For the petitioners: Mr. Shah Faisal Ilyas, Additional Advocate General, KP
Respondents: N.R. Date of hearing: 24.3.2026
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Service Commission through its Secretary & others Petitioners
VERSUS
Gohar Rehman Respondent
Law:
Section:
Summary of the Judgment The case concerned a candidate who applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) in Mohmand Agency in 2016. Although he secured higher merit for Tehsil Safi, he was denied appointment because he had submitted a duplicate domicile certificate after losing the original one. The candidate challenged this decision before the Peshawar High Court, which ruled in his favor and ordered his appointment in 2020. However, the department placed him junior to candidates who had already been appointed in 2017. He again approached the High Court seeking seniority according to his original merit position. The High Court directed that his appointment be treated as effective from 6 October 2017 for seniority purposes only, while denying him back pay or other financial benefits. The department challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that seniority could only start from the date the respondent actually joined service. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision. The Court held that: A person wrongly excluded from appointment due to departmental error or illegality should be restored, as far as possible, to the position he would have occupied had the wrong not occurred. The government cannot benefit from its own mistake or unlawful action. Service benefits such as seniority may be granted retrospectively on a notional basis where delay or denial was not caused by the employee. This principle applies not only to promotions but also to initial appointments. The Court noted that the respondent was denied appointment despite being meritorious and that the exclusion was later found unlawful. Therefore, denying him proper seniority would allow the department to benefit from its own wrong. The Court approved the limited relief granted by the High Court: ante-dated appointment only for seniority purposes; and no back salary or financial benefits. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Judgment Syed Arshad Hussain…