IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, CJ 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 30-L OF 2018 
(On 
appeal 
against 
the 
judgment 
dated 
03.11.2017 passed by the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore in Writ Petition No. 26075/2014) 
 
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment, Islamabad  
 
…Appellant(s) 
VERSUS 
M.Y. Labib-ur-Rehman  and others 
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Addl. Attorney 
General  
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
For the Respondent (1): 
In person 
 
 
Date of Hearing: 
09.07.2021 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- The instant appeal has 
been filed by the appellant under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of 
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, calling in question the vires of 
the impugned judgment dated 03.11.2017 passed by the Lahore 
High Court, Lahore, whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the 
respondent No. 1 was allowed and a direction was issued to the 
appellant to grant antedated promotion to the respondent in BS-21 
with effect from 09.10.2002 instead of 30.03.2010 and further to 
grant him proforma promotion in BS-22 with effect from 04.05.2005. 
The appellant was also burdened with special cost of Rs.200,000/- 
for entangling the respondent in unnecessary litigation for years and 
intentionally frustrating the findings of this court in his favour.  
2. 
 
The facts in brief are that the respondent joined civil 
service of Pakistan in the year 1974. Eventually, he was promoted 
to BS-20. He was considered for further promotion to BS-21 in the 
years 2001 to 2006. However, as he could not meet the minimum 
threshold required for promotion, the Central Selection Board 
recommended him for supersession. In the year 2007, the case of 
the respondent was deferred due to incomplete Personal Evaluation 
Civil Appeal No. 30-L/2018 
-: 2 :-
Report. In the year 2008 & 2009, he was again considered for 
promotion but his case was recommended for supersession. The 
case of the respondent was once again considered in the year 2009 
but the Central Selection Board again deferred the same on the 
ground that he had not earned PER for one full year. Being 
aggrieved, the respondent filed Service Appeal before the Federal 
Service Tribunal, Islamabad, with a prayer that the PERs earned 
during the service when the respondent was placed in BS-19 
commencing from the period November, 1992 to April, 1998 be 
treated as PERs to have been earned in BS-20 and the same be 
considered and re-quantified for the purpose of promotion to BS-21. 
The Service Tribunal after taking into consideration all facts and 
circumstances dismissed the appeal of the respondent vide 
judgment dated 24.04.2004. However, a direction was issued to re-
examine the case of the respondent in its entirety. In pursuance of 
the direction issued by the Federal Service Tribunal vide judgment 
referred above, a summary was en-routed to the President of 
Pakistan through Prime Minister but the same was turned down vide 
order dated 27.01.2007. In the second round of litigation, the 
respondent preferred to challenge the order dated 27.01.2007 before 
the Federal Service Tribunal but the same was dismissed vide 
judgment dated 21.07.2009. The order of the Service Tribunal was 
assailed before this Court by filing Civil Petition No. 1791/2009, 
which was converted into appeal and allowed vide order dated 
26.03.2010 with a direction to the appellant to re-evaluate the 
grievances of the respondent. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the 
case of the respondent was thoroughly probed by the Central 
Selection Board and finally it refused to grant him BS-22. However, 
his promotion to next grade i.e. BS-21 was notified vide order dated 
30.03.2010 and on the very next day i.e. 31.03.2010, he after 
attaining the age of superannuation retired from service. Thereafter, 
the respondent while availing another forum under the law filed a 
Constitutional Petition No. 27499/2012 before the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore praying therein for the grant of antedated promotion to 
BS-22. 
The 
learned 
High 
Court 
without 
questioning 
the 
maintainability of the said petition transmitted the copy of the 
Constitutional petition to the quarter concerned to be treated as 
representation for its consideration. The appellant considered the 
Civil Appeal No. 30-L/2018 
-: 3 :-
case of the respondent for the third time in compliance with the order 
passed by the High Court but again the Central Selection Board 
maintained its earlier decision of supersession with approval of the 
competent 
authority. 
The 
respondent 
once 
again 
filed 
a 
Constitutional Petition No. 26075/2014 before the Lahore High 
Court, Lahore with a prayer for antedated promotion in BS-21 and 
proforma promotion to BS-22, which petition succeeded vide 
impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal by leave of the Court. 
3. 
 
At the very outset, the learned Additional Attorney 
General inter alia contended that the judgment of this Court in the 
earlier round of litigation has been complied with in letter and spirit 
while granting the respondent promotion to BS-21 yet he assailed 
Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court calling in question the 
same grievances, which had been earlier decided by altogether a 
different forum; that the respondent could not have approached two 
different forums at the same time seeking the same relief, which is 
squarely hit by Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan, 1973; that the learned High Court has wrongly 
assumed the jurisdiction and acceded to the prayer of the 
respondent, which was uncalled for specially when it is an admitted 
fact that the respondent has never touched the minimum threshold, 
which was essential for the promotion whereas the High Court has 
assumed the jurisdiction of Central Selection Board while passing 
the impugned judgment and not only transgressed its jurisdiction 
rather has passed the judgment, which is against the law on the 
subject.  
4. 
 
On the other hand, respondent No. 1 (in person) has 
defended the impugned judgment. The main stay of the arguments 
advanced by the respondent is that he has been deprived of his 
right without any fault at his part rather he has been subjected to 
victimization without any blemish on his part; that he has agitated 
his grievance for a period of 18 years and finally the same was 
redressed by the High Court in the second round of litigation; that he 
was fully justified/entitled for the antedated promotion, which was 
denied to him without any justiciable reasoning.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned Law Officer as also the 
respondent in person and have perused the available record.  
 
Civil Appeal No. 30-L/2018 
-: 4 :-
 
 
We have extensively perused the available record and 
even the conduct of the respondent, which is spread over a span of 
18 years. The career of the respondent as civil servant remained 
smooth till he was placed in BS-20. We have noticed that the 
competent authority declined to promote the respondent in next scale 
on the basis of clear and sound foundation. It is an admitted fact 
that the respondent was superseded for six consecutive years 
commencing from 2001 to 2006. Similarly, in 2007 due to incomplete 
PERs the case of the respondent was not considered whereas on the 
following two years i.e. 2008 & 2009, the case of the respondent 
was deferred on the similar grounds i.e. he could not meet the 
minimum threshold of 75% marks. The respondent twice approached 
the Federal Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. In the 
second round of litigation the order of Service Tribunal dismissing 
respondent’s appeal was challenged before this Court, which leaves 
no room that the respondent was fully conversant with the scheme 
of the law and the forum to agitate his grievances. After exhausting 
the appropriate remedies available under the law, the respondent 
preferred to file Constitutional petition in the year 2012 wherein the 
question of maintainability was not raised and the same was 
transmitted to the competent authority by treating it as a 
representation but the competent authority maintained its earlier 
decision. The second Constitutional petition in which the respondent 
succeeded and which is impugned before us was primarily hit by 
the principle of res judicata and consequently ought to have been not 
entertained by the High Court in view of the bar contained under 
Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The 
High Court without indulging into the question of maintainability 
passed the order in cyclostyle fashion while assuming the 
jurisdiction which is not vested in it. This Court in the recent 
judgment dated 21.05.2021 titled as ‘Khalilullah Kakar Vs. PPO 
Balochistan’ passed in Civil Appeal No. 909/2020 etc has 
candidly held that Article 212 of the Constitution specifically places 
an embargo on all other courts except the Service Tribunal to assume 
jurisdiction. It is now established that any lis relating to terms and 
conditions of service is within the domain of administrative courts 
and tribunals established under Article 212 and even if the element 
of mala fides, ultra vires or coram non judice is pressed into, the 
Civil Appeal No. 30-L/2018 
-: 5 :-
same can be entertained and decided by the said courts in its 
jurisdiction. There is no denial to this fact that the bare reading of 
the said Article is of significant importance especially with reference 
to its exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to terms and 
conditions of service. Hence, in all eventualities any petition relating 
to terms and conditions of service is to be dealt with by 
administrative courts and tribunals specifically established for its 
adjudication in pursuance of Article 212 of the Constitution. As a 
general principle, the framers of the Constitution while inserting the 
said provision have ousted the jurisdiction of other courts including 
the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. There are 
certain exceptions depending upon the facts and circumstances on 
case to case basis because of the reason that the law is not static 
and the same is growing day by day, therefore, it cannot be said 
with certainty that in all eventualities the service issues cannot be 
called in question in Constitutional jurisdiction before the High Court. 
The 
Constitutional 
jurisdiction 
is 
always 
considered 
as 
extraordinary, 
which 
is 
to 
be 
exercised 
in 
extraordinary 
circumstances if so warranted, hence, the Constitutional jurisdiction 
cannot be curtailed stricto sensu leaving some room for its 
application where it is so demanding for safe administration of 
justice and fair play. The superior courts while exercising 
Constitutional jurisdiction must satisfy themselves that they may not 
interfere or infringe the jurisdiction of any other statutory forum in 
any manner when an equally efficacious / adequate remedy is 
available under the statute for the redressal of the grievances of the 
litigants. Hence, the superior courts should be reluctant to frustrate 
the statutory remedies 
while exercising their Constitutional 
jurisdiction, which otherwise has to be exercised sparingly while 
enabling to advance the legislative intent.  
6. 
 
Now, we will consider the merits of the case. The 
learned High Court while passing the impugned judgment put much 
stress on the point that this Court in the earlier round of litigation 
had allowed the appeal of the respondent by observing that he has 
been deprived of his right, which was denied to him for technical 
reasons. We have perused the earlier judgment of this Court and 
found that this Court only sent back the matter to the appellant 
department for considering respondent’s case in view of the 
Civil Appeal No. 30-L/2018 
-: 6 :-
seniority list and the rules on the subject and nowhere in the 
judgment it was directed that the respondent be given antedated 
promotion. We have been informed that in compliance with the 
judgment of this Court, case of the respondent was processed by 
circulation and on the recommendation of the Central Selection 
Board and after approval of the competent authority, he was 
promoted to BS-21 vide notification dated 30.03.2010. So far as 
grant of antedated promotion to the respondent in BS-21 with effect 
from 09.10.2002 is concerned, we have noted that the respondent 
was considered for promotion by the Central Selection Board in the 
years 2001 to 2006 but was recommended for supersession due to 
the reason that his quantified score was below the minimum 
threshold prescribed for promotion. In the year 2007, his case was 
deferred due to incomplete Personal Evaluation Reports. In the year 
2008 & 2009, he was again considered for promotion but his case 
was recommended for supersession due to the same reason i.e. he 
could not meet the minimum threshold. Again in the year 2009, his 
case was considered for promotion but was deferred due to reason 
that he had not earned Personal Evaluation Report for one full year. 
The respondent did not challenge his supersession for the years 
2001 to 2006 and only filed Service Appeal before the Federal 
Service Tribunal in the year 2008 with the prayer that PERs earned 
by him in BS-19 during the period from November, 1992 to April, 
1998 be treated as PERs to have been earned in BS-20 and be re-
quantified for the purpose of promotion to BS-21 but the same stood 
dismissed and on appeal before this Court, the matter was sent to 
the department for consideration and ultimately, he was given BS-
21 with effect from 2010. We have been informed that pursuant to 
the order passed by the learned High Court in Writ Petition No. 
27499/2012 on 21.02.2013, the case of the respondent was again 
placed before the Central Selection Board in February, 2014 to 
review its earlier recommendation for supersession. The Board had 
reopened the cases of earlier supersessions after more than 14 
years and after thoroughly checking the record maintained its earlier 
decision. As far as the question that as the employees junior to the 
respondent have been promoted, the respondent also deserves the 
antedate promotion is concerned, this Court in the case of Abdul 
Ghani Chaudhry Vs. Secretary Establishment, Islamabad (1998 
Civil Appeal No. 30-L/2018 
-: 7 :-
SCMR 2544) has held that civil servant who was consciously 
superseded after considering his service record by the departmental 
promotion committee cannot regain his original seniority or 
subsequent promotions so long the order of the promotion committee 
superseding him stands in the field and supersession of the civil 
servant in such a case is neither advertent nor same falls in the 
category of deferment, so as to entitle the civil servant, on 
subsequent promotion, to regain his original seniority. In this view of 
the matter, the antedated promotion with effect from 09.10.2002 
could not have been granted to the respondent and only his 
promotion to BS-21 with effect from 30.03.2010 was justified. Rule 
4(i) of Civil Servants (Promotion to the Post of Secretary BS-22 and 
Equivalent) Rules, 2010, clearly mandates that two years’ service in 
BS-21 is mandatory for consideration for promotion to BS-22. As the 
respondent did not have the minimum service of two years at the 
time of his superannuation on 31.03.2010, therefore, he could not 
have been given proforma promotion to BS-22. Under the 
aforementioned circumstances, it is established without any 
hesitation that the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is 
the result of misreading and non-reading of record and the law on 
the subject, hence, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As a 
consequence, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is 
set aside.  
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
9th of July, 2021 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram