Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 199, 3, 4, 5(2), 18, 25(1) & 27

Law: Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974

Section: 17-A

Law: Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 

Section: 23

Law: Punjab Office of Ombudsman Act, 1997

Section: 16

 Summary

The High Court dismissed the constitutional petition filed by BISE Rawalpindi and upheld the orders of the Provincial Ombudsman and the Governor, Punjab directing the appointment of respondent Abdul Qavi under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The respondent's father, a Naib Qasid, had been medically invalidated (Category "B") in 2009, and an application for compassionate appointment was submitted before Rule 17-A was omitted in July 2024.

The Court held that the respondent's right to appointment had accrued before the omission of Rule 17-A, and subsequent judicial decisions declaring the Rule unconstitutional could not retrospectively extinguish vested rights. Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276) and Ayyaz Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (2026 SCMR 42), as well as the Federal Constitutional Court judgment in Province of Sindh v. Muhammad Rizwan, the Court ruled that the declaration of unconstitutionality operates prospectively and does not affect accrued or vested rights.

The Court further held that departmental instructions excluding employees retired on medical invalidation in Category "B" from the benefit of Rule 17-A were contrary to the Rule and could not curtail statutory rights. Consequently, BISE Rawalpindi was directed to appoint Abdul Qavi under Rule 17-A within thirty days.