IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Present: 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Nasir-ul-Mulk, HCJ 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Justice Ijaz Ahmed Chaudhry 
 
 
Civil Petition No.84-P of 2015. 
(On appeal from judgment dated 
22.1.2015, of the Peshawar High 
Court, Peshawar, passed in W.P. 
No.3258 of 2013). 
 
 
Sarhad Development Authority through its 
Chairman.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
…Petitioners. 
 
VS 
 
Syed Muhammad Latif Shah and others.  
 
 
…Respondents. 
 
 
For the petitioners:  
Mr. Muhammad Ijaz Sabi, ASC. 
 
For the respondents: 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing: 
 
25.3.2015. 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J. – This Petition for leave to 
Appeal is directed against judgment dated 22.1.2015, passed by the 
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby Writ Petition filed by the 
Respondent No.1 was allowed and the Notification of Promotion of the 
Respondent No.9 was struck down.  
 
2. 
 
The facts necessary for decision of the present Petition are that 
the Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition before the Peshawar High Court, 
praying therein to set aside the Notification of Promotion of the Respondent 
No.9 against the Post of General Manager (Administration) (BS-19) being 
C.P.No.84-P/2015. 
2 
violative of the Sarhad Development Authority (Appointment of Employees) 
Rules, 1977 framed under the Sarhad Development Authority Act 1973. The 
Respondent No.1 pleaded in the Writ Petition that he was the senior most 
BS-18 officer of Managerial Cadre in the Sarhad Development Authority 
(hereinafter referred to as the Authority) and Promotion of the Respondent 
No.9, who belongs to the Finance Cadre, was against the said Rules. At the 
relevant time the Respondent No.1 was working as Industrial Estate 
Manager (BPS-18) in the Managerial Cadre in the Export Processing Zone 
Risalpur and was posted against the post of General Manager 
(Administration) Sarhad Development Authority, keeping in view his 
seniority in the Managerial Cadre. However, the Departmental Promotion 
Committee in its meeting recommended the Respondent No.9 for promotion 
to the post of General Manager (Administration). Accordingly the 
notification for promotion of the Respondent No.9 was issued in compliance 
with the minutes of the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee.   
 
3. 
 
Feeling aggrieved, the Respondent No.1 filed departmental 
Review Petition against the order of the Departmental Promotion 
Committee, which was turned down by the Competent Authority, by order 
dated 2.11.2013.  Therefore, he filed Writ Petition before the Peshawar High 
Court, which was allowed as stated above. Hence this Petition for leave to 
Appeal.  
 
4. 
 
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the 
learned High Court has wrongly entertained the Writ Petition filed by the 
Respondent No.1, as the Sarhad Development Authority (Appointment of 
Employees) Rules, 1977 are non-statutory in nature and the Employees of 
C.P.No.84-P/2015. 
3 
the Sarhad Development Authority are governed by the principle of Master 
and Servant. He next contended that the Sarhad Development Authority 
(Appointment of Employees) Rules, 1977, were not notified as required by 
Section 29 of the Sarhad Development Authority Act, 1973, therefore, the 
High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the service matters of the 
employees of the Authority.   
 
5. 
 
He further contended that the Respondent No.9 is the senior-
most BS-18 officer of the Sarhad Development Authority and the 
Departmental Promotion Committee has rightly recommended his name for 
promotion to the post of General Manager (Administration) (BS-19) which 
is to be filled in by promoting the senior most officer of BS-18 of the 
Authority.  
 
6. 
 
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and have 
perused the record. The Petitioner-Authority is created by Sarhad 
Development Authority, N.W.F.P Act No.IX of 1973, promulgated on 
12.1.1973. Section 29 of the Act provides:- 
“29 
(1) Government may, by notification in the official 
Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this 
Act. 
 
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the 
generally of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide 
for – 
(a) 
the manner of keeping accounts of the Authority and 
the companies managed by it; 
(b) 
the recruitment of officers, advisers and employees 
of the Authority; 
© 
the terms and conditions of service of the officers, 
advisers and employees of the Authority, including the 
functions of the advisers; 
C.P.No.84-P/2015. 
4 
(d) 
the borrowing by the Authority.  
(e) 
the purchase and sale of good by the Authority; 
(f) 
the date by which and the form in which, the annual 
budget statement shall be submitted in each year;  
(g) 
the 
procedure 
for 
appropriation 
and 
re-
appropriation of moneys returns, at the credit of the 
Authority; 
(h) 
the form and manner in which and the authorities to 
whom returns, reports or statements shall be submitted; 
and  
(i) 
such other matters relating to the administration of 
the affairs of the Authority as Government may think fit to 
regulate by rules; 
 
7. 
 
From 1973 till date, the Government of KPK has failed to 
frame Rules in terms of Section 29 of the Act inclusive of the Rules for 
recruitment of the Officers, Advisors and employees of the Authority. The 
Government was further required to frame Rules pertaining to the terms and 
conditions of services of the officers and employees of the Authority. This 
omission, prima facie, shows that the Government, in absence of the 
proposed Rules is regulating the service of the Petitioner-Authority by 
exercising its unstructured discretion in recruitment/promotion of officers 
and employees in the Authority. We, therefore, direct the Government of 
KPK to comply with the provisions of Section 29 of the Act within three 
moths from the date of this judgment and submit compliance report to the 
Registrar of this Court for our perusal in Chambers.  
 
8. 
 
The Petitioner-Authority is bound by its own Rules which 
categorize different Cadres in the service of the Authority. In the case in 
hand, the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court is immaterial, as the 
officer who is aggrieved by the impugned judgment has not challenged it 
C.P.No.84-P/2015. 
5 
before this Court. The grant of leave by this Court under Article 185 (3) of 
the Constitution is discretionary. By the impugned judgment, the learned 
High Court has resolved the issue of promotion between the two individuals 
which has no bearing over the Petitioner-Authority. It is the aggrieved 
officer who could have approached this Court. The Petitioner-Authority has 
no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and is bound by its 
own Rules, which permit the Respondent No.1 to be promoted under its 
rules as has been determined by the learned High Court.  
 
9. 
 
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of 
the view that our interference in the impugned judgment would perpetuate 
injustice and, therefore, we are not inclined to intervene. For the aforesaid 
reasons, this Petition being misconceived is accordingly dismissed and leave 
declined. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary and 
Advocate General, KPK, for the information and compliance of the direction 
contained in para 7 above of the judgment.  
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Islamabad the, 
25th March 2015. 
Approved for Reporting. 
Sohail/**