Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199,175(2), (3), 203, 212, 240, 260(1)

Case Summary Court & Judge Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J. — Constitutional Petition under Article 199 Parties Role Description Petitioners Judicial officers serving in Islamabad District Judiciary (working on deputation, affected by repatriation order) Respondent No. 1 Muhammad Shabbir — member of Islamabad Judicial Service, original appellant before the Tribunal Other Respondents Federation of Pakistan; Islamabad High Court (institutionally); reconstituted Tribunal members Nature of Proceeding A challenge to Order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Islamabad Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal ("erstwhile Tribunal"), which had suo motu declared its own reconstitution invalid and ordered repatriation of deputed judicial officers — leaving the petitioners without any functioning forum. Background Chronology Date Event 13.03.2025 Judicial Service Appeal No. 03/2016 (Muhammad Shabbir's seniority/promotion grievance) heard by "erstwhile Tribunal" (Tariq Mehmood Jehangiri, J. — Chairman; Babar Sattar, J.; Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, J.); judgment reserved 18.03.2025 Ministry of Law & Justice, per Chief Justice's recommendation, reconstituted the Tribunal via notification under Section 3, 2016-Act — new composition: Khadim Hussain Soomro, J. (Chairman); Muhammad Azam Khan, J.; Inaam Ameen Minhas, J. 21.03.2025 Erstwhile Tribunal announced short order: partially allowed the appeal; set aside the 18.03.2025 reconstitution notification; ordered repatriation of all deputed judicial officers including Respondent No. 1; read down Rules 9 & 30 of the 2011-Rules as conflicting with the IHC Act Core Legal Issues Whether the erstwhile Tribunal had jurisdiction to suo motu examine and set aside the notification reconstituting itself? Whether petitioners (non-parties to the original appeal) were condemned unheard? Whether the Tribunal's powers extend to determining vires of its own constituting notification, or amount to an impermissible exercise of quo warranto jurisdiction reserved exclusively for the High Court? Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the alternate remedy of review under Section 7,…