IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
(On appeal against the judgment dt. 14.03.2017 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta passed in CPs. 
 No. 99/2017, 961/2016, 936 of 2016,  
 
 
 
Sudhir Ahmed  
Dawood Khan 
Imran Akbar and others 
Imtiaz Buzdar 
Faisal Khan 
Raja RahatJaved 
Appellant(s) 
 
                                               VERSUS 
 
 
The Speaker, Balochistan Provincial Assembly and 
others 
 
Govt. of Balochistan thr. its Chief Secretary, Quetta 
and another.  
 
The Secretary, Industries and Commerce, Govt. of 
Balochistan and others 
 
Federation of Pakistanthr. its Secretary, M/o Interior, 
Islamabad and others.  
 
 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Raja Saifur Rehman, ASC 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Ch., AOR 
(absent) (in CA 704/17) 
 
Mir Aurangzeb, AOR/AC 
(in CA 705/17) 
 
Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
Mr. Ahmed Nawaz Ch., AOR 
(absent) (in CA 706 & 778/17) 
 
Mr. Abdul Raheem Bhatti, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(in CA 708/17) 
 
Faisal Khan, in person 
(in CA 711/17) 
 
 
 
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
2 
For the Respondent(s) 
: Mr. 
AmanullahKanrani, 
AG 
Balochistan 
Mr. Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl. AG 
Balochistan 
 
Mr. SajjidIllyas Bhatti, DAG 
(CA 778/17) 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 26.05.2017 (Judgment Reserved) 
 
 
J U D G M E N T  
 
 
 
 
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.-These appeals with the leave of the 
Court have arisen out of the judgement dated 14.03.2017 of the 
Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court whereby it dismissed the 
Constitution Petitions of the appellants as being not maintainable.  
2. 
 
Appellant in C.A. 704 of 2017 was working as a Senior 
Research Officer in BS-16 in Capital Development Authority (CDA), 
Islamabad. He, vide order dated 20.05.2014, was appointed on 
deputation as Liaison Officer in the Balochistan Provincial Assembly 
Secretariat for a period of three years on usual terms and conditions. 
He was then absorbed against the said post in BPS-17 vide 
notification dated 05.05.2015. He then in view of the judgment 
rendered in the cases of Contempt proceedings against the Chief 
Secretary Sindh and others (2013 SCMR 1752)and Ali Azhar Khan 
Baloch. Vs. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) vide notification 
dated 24.01.2017 was directed to report to his parent department. 
He filed a Constitution Petition in the Balochistan High Court against 
the notification which was dismissed as mentioned above.  
3. 
 
Appellant in C.A. 705 of 2017, through notification dated 
08.12.2016 was repatriated to S&GAD department. He filled a Writ 
Petition before the Balochistan High Court which was dismissed as 
mentioned above.    
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
3 
4. 
 
Appellant no.1 in C.A. 706 of 2017 was appointed as 
Assistant Engineer in BS-17 through the Public Service Commission in 
the Public Health Engineering Department vide notification dated 
20.03.2007. Soon, thereafter, he was absorbed in Communication 
and Works Department vide letter dated 13.03.2008 which was 
approved by the Chief Minister Balochistan. Whereas, appellant no.2 
was appointed as Assistant Civil Engineer in BS-17 in Water and Power 
Development Authority (WAPDA) on contract basis. He after clearing 
the written test and interview was regularized against the said post 
vide notification dated 17.05.2006. He then with the intervention of 
the Chief Minister was absorbed in Communication and Works 
Department vide notification dated 24.03.2007. The Government of 
Balochistan pursuant to the letter dated 17.10.2016 directed the 
appellants to report back to their parent department and on 
18.10.2016 issued the order repatriating them to their parent 
department. The appellants questioned their repatriation through a 
Constitutional Petition in the Balochistan High Court which was 
dismissed as mentioned above.  
5. 
 
Appellant in C.A. 708 of 2017 was working as Additional 
General Manager BS-18. He vide notification dated 09.10.2013 was 
appointed as Project Engineer Cadet College Killa Saifullah and 
Kohlu. He then was selected and posted as Project Director Cadet 
College Balochistan. He vide notification dated 24.10.2016 was 
repatriated in his parent department. He filed a Constitution Petition 
in the Balochistan High Court which, as mentioned above, was 
dismissed as being not maintainable.   
6. 
 
Appellant in C.A. 711 of 2017 was appointed as 
Architect BS-17 in Gwadar Development Authority vide notification 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
4 
dated 28.08.2008. The appellant was then confirmed against the said 
post vide notification dated 17.09.2008. He was then appointed as 
an Assistant Engineer in BPS-17 on deputation in Lasbella Industrial 
Estate vide notification dated 18.01.2011. Finally, he was absorbed in 
Lasbella Industrial Estate vide notification dated 29.12.2014. On 
17.10.2016 he was repatriated to Gwadar Development Authority. He 
filed a Constitution Petition in the Balochistan High Court against the 
notification repatriating him to his parent department which was 
dismissed as mentioned above.   
7. 
 
The appellant in C.A. 778 of 2017 was working as an 
Inspector BS-16 in Intelligence Bureau (IB). He possesses expertise and 
knowledge in the field of Information Technology and Geofencing. 
He was appointed as Inspector BS-16 in Islamabad Capital Territory 
(ICT) Police on deputation for a period of three years vide 
notification dated 03.07.2008. His tenure has been extended from 
time to time till the time he was repatriated to his parent department 
vide notification dated 08.02.2016. He filed an appeal before the 
Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed on the ground that he 
being a Civil Servant of non-cadre post could not be absorbed in the 
ICT Police as Inspector.     
 
 
8. 
 
The common argument addressed by the learned ASCs 
for the appellants is that when the appointment of the appellants on 
deputation and then through absorption was not objected to by any 
nor had it affected the rights of any, notification repatriating the 
appellants to their parent departments, being without any legal basis 
cannot be maintained.  
9. 
 
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on 
behalf of the respondents contended that where appointment by 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
5 
absorption is not provided by any of the statutes regulating 
appointment by initial recruitment, promotion or transfer, this Court 
rightly directed the repatriation of all such employees to their parent 
department. 
10. 
 
We have gone through the record and the relevant rules 
carefully and have considered the submissions of the learned ASCs 
for the appellants and the Learned Additional Advocate General 
Balochistan.  
11. 
 
The case of the appellant in C.A. No. 704 of 2017 is that 
he being a Senior Research Officer in BS-16 was absorbed in the 
Balochistan Provincial Assembly Secretariat as a Liaison Officer. How 
far his appointment on deputation and then by absorption is justified 
is a question which could well be answered by looking into the 
Schedule B of The Balochistan Provincial Assembly Secretariat 
(Recruitment) Rules, 2009 relating to the appointment of Liaison 
Officers as reproduced below:   
S. No.  
Nomenclature & Basic Pay 
Scale of the Post 
Minimum 
qualification 
for 
initial recruitment 
Method 
of 
Recruitment 
26.  
Liaison Officer B-17 
 --- 
By 
Promotion 
from 
Assistant 
Liaison 
Officer B-16 with 5 
years service as such. 
 
 The schedule reproduced above shows that the post of Liaison 
Officer cannot be filled except by promotion of an Assistant Liaison 
Officer BS-16 with 5 years of service. Appointment by deputation or 
by absorption being against law cannot be maintained. The 
notification repatriating the appellant to his parent department is, 
thus, unexceptionable.  
12. 
 
Appellant in C.A. No. 705 of 2017, was appointed as a 
driver in BS-04 in the Planning and Development Department (P&D), 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
6 
Government of Balochistan vide notification dated 01.12.1992. He 
was then transferred to Service and General Administration 
Department (S&GAD). He, however, was retransferred to P&D. On 
occurrence of a vacancy of Transport Supervisor in BS-11, the 
appellant being senior was promoted as a Transport Supervisor vide 
notification dated 05.08.2008. His seniority was questioned before the 
Service Tribunal through an appeal before the Balochistan Service 
Tribunal Quetta which was allowed vide judgment dated 05.06.2013. 
The appellant challenged the judgment of the Service Tribunal 
mentioned above through a petition for leave to appeal before this 
Court which was allowed in the terms as under:- 
“2.  
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
find that the Tribunal has not adverted to the true facts of the 
case and one of the confusions in the matter is whether the 
respondent was ever transferred from P&D department to 
S&GAD department, if so, and not re-transferred to P&D 
department; obviously then in the seniority list prepared for the 
drivers of P&D department, he would not be shown. Whereas the 
claim of the respondent’s counsel today is that he had never 
ever been transferred to the S&GAD department, but from the 
comments available on the record (at page 28 of the 
paperbook) filed by the Secretary, S&GAD before the Tribunal, 
find that the respondent is the employee of the S&GAD 
department. Be that as it may, as these factors are relevant for 
the purposes of the final determination of seniority of the parties 
and as there seems to be some discord between P&D and 
S&GAD department, therefore, we direct the Chief Secretary, 
Balochistan to look into the matter himself; ascertain as to where 
exactly the petitioner and the respondent are employed, and to 
re-determine their seniority after giving them an opportunity of 
hearing. Both the petitioner and the respondent are directed to 
appear before the Chief Secretary on 25.09.2013 and the matter 
of their seniority shall be finalized within one month thereafter. 
Accordingly, by setting aside the impugned judgment, this 
petition is converted into an appeal and allowed.” 
 
The case on remand from the Supreme Court was decided against 
the appellant vide order dated 11.11.2013 of the Additional Chief 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
7 
Secretary Planning and Development Department. Appellant 
preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal which was allowed 
vide its judgment dated 19.05.2014 in the terms as under:- 
“16. In view of the above facts, it is quite clear that the 
Respondent No.2 (Mr. Aashiq Hussain) is an employee of S&GAD 
department, therefore, his claim for promotion as Transport 
Supervisor (B-11) is not justified, therefore the appeal is accepted 
and the impugned orders issued by the Respondent No.4 
(Additional Chief Secretary) P&D Department, and Respondent 
No.1 (Deputy Secretary (Services – II S&GAD), dated 27-11-2013 
and 11-11-2013 are hereby set aside with no order as to cost. File 
after completion be consigned to record.” 
 
Ashiq Hussain, respondent no. 2 before the Service Tribunal, 
discontent with the aforesaid judgment preferred leave to appeal 
before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2014 
which reads as under: 
“This is a service matter in which the two contestants are the 
petitioner Aashiq Hussain and Dawood Khan who is respondent 
No.4. Both are Drivers. The issue between them relates to inter se 
seniority. We have gone through the impugnedjudgement 
rendered by the Balochistan Service Tribunal dated 19.05.2014. The 
judgement is well reasoned and is consistent with the record which 
was available with the Service Tribunal. Learned counsel for the 
petitioner has, however, referred to a number of documents which 
he has placed on file, which admittedly were not on the record of 
the Service Tribunal. These documents, therefore cannot be 
considered by us. Considering this lapse on the part of the 
petitioner, learned counsel representing him, requested that the 
matter be remanded to the Service Tribunal. This request is also not 
tenable, considering that the matter is going on for many years 
and litigation between the contestants has seen a number of 
rounds, before the department concerned, before the Chief 
Secretary and before the Service Tribunal.  
2. 
 
In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no 
justification for interfering in the impugned judgement, considering 
in mind the provisions of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. This 
petition, therefore, is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.”   
 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
8 
Once the appellant was held to be an employee of P&D 
department by the judgment of the Service Tribunal which has been 
upheld by this Court, he could not be disturbed unless the judgement 
of the Service Tribunal or this Court is set aside through a proceeding 
under section 12(2) of the CPC. 
13. 
 
The only point requiring consideration in C.A. No. 706 is 
that 
whether 
the 
appellants 
could 
be 
absorbed 
in 
the 
Communication and Works department. Before we discuss this 
aspect, we would like to see what is the criteria for appointment of 
Assistant Engineer as laid down in the appendix substituted through 
notification No.SOR-II(3)12/S&GAD/1533-1643, dated 23.08.1997 in 
the Balochistan Communication and Works Department Civil, 
Mechanical, Electrical and Gas Engineers (BPS-17 and above) 
Service Rules, 1986 which reads as under:- 
“TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE NEXT 
SUE OF BALOCHISTAN GAZETTE 
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN  
SERVICES AND GENERAL ADMIN. DEPARTMENT  
(Regulation Section-II) 
 
Dated Quetta the 23rd August, 1997 
N O T I F I C A T I O N  
No.SOR-II(3)12/S&GAD/1533-1643. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 
of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 (IX of 1974), the Government of 
Balochistan 
is 
pleased 
to 
substitute 
the 
Appendix 
to 
the 
Balochistan 
Communication and Works Department Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Gas 
Engineers (BPS-17 and above) Service Rules, 1986 namely : 
APPENDIX 
(See Rule 3(3), 5 and 7 (1). 
 
S. 
NO 
NOMENCLATURE OF 
THE POST 
MINMIMUM 
QUALFICATION 
PRESCRIBED 
FOR 
INITIAL 
RECRUITMENT  
 
METHOD OF RECRUITMENT 
1. 
Chief Engineer  
(B-20) 
--- 
By selection from amongst members of 
the 
service 
holding 
the 
post 
of 
Superintending Engineer on the basis of 
seniority-cum-fitness having at least 17 
years service in BS-17 and above. 
2. 
Superintending 
Engineer (B-19) 
---- 
By selection on the basis of seniority-cum-
fitness having at least 12 years service B-
17 and above from amongst members of 
the service holding the post of Executive 
Engineer having a degree in Engineering 
 
3. 
Executive Engineer 
(B-18) 
---- 
a)  80% by promotion on the basis of 
seniority-cum-fitness having at least 5 
years service in B-17 from amongst the 
graduate members of the service in the 
relevant field holding the post of Assistant 
Engineer.  
b) 20% by promotion on the basis of 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
9 
seniority-cum-fitness having at least five 
years service in B-17 from amongst the 
members of the service in the relevant 
field holding the post of Assistant Engineer 
holding Diploma of Associate Engineer of 
B-Tech (Hons.) 
4. 
Assistant Engineer B-
17. 
--- 
Degree in Civil, Electrical or Mechanical 
Engineering from a recognize University or 
equivalent qualification.  
a)   70% by initial recruitment.  
b)   5% by promotion from amongst holder 
of the post of Sub-Engineer holding the 
degree 
prior 
to 
induction 
to 
the 
Government service provided that in 
case of non availability of Sub-Engineer 
holding pre-service degree in Engineering 
in the relevant field vacancies reserved 
for them shall be added to the share of 
the category of Sub-Engineers having 
acquired degree during service.  
c)  5% by promotion from amongst the 
holder of the post of Sub-Engineers 
acquiring the degree during service, 
provided that in case of non availability of 
Sub-Engineers acquiring degree during 
service the vacancies reserved for them 
shall be added to the share of the 
category of Sub-Engineers having pre-
service degree. 
 
Provided further that in case of non-
availability of Sub-Engineers having pre-
service degree or having acquired post 
service degree such vacancies of both of 
the categories be added to the share 
reserved 
for 
Diploma 
holder 
Sub-
Engineers.  
 
d)   17% by promotion on seniority-cum-
fitness basis having ten years service as 
such 
and 
having 
passed 
such 
examination 
or 
training 
if 
any 
as 
prescribed by the Government from time 
to time, from amongst the members of 
the service holding of the post of Sub-
Engineers having three years Diploma in 
Associate Engineers.  
 
e) 3% by promotion on seniority-cum-
fitness basis having ten years service as 
such and having passed examination or 
training if any, as prescribed by the 
Government from time to time, from 
amongst the members of the service 
holding the post of Sub-Engineers having 
degree of B-Tech. (Hons).  
     
 
By Order of 
Governor Balochistan 
 
Chief Secretary, 
Government of Balochistan” 
 
A look at the relevant table of the rules would reveal that the post of 
Assistant Engineer BPS-17 is to be filled by initial recruitment or 
promotion. There is nothing on the record to show what was that 
unusual which justified the deviation from the legal course. 
Appointment by absorption, which more often than not, is resorted to 
through the intervention of the people in power by ignoring the 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
10 
merit, cannot be approved and upheld. Having thus considered we 
do not feel inclined to interfere with the notification repatriating the 
appellants to their parent department.  
14. 
 
The case of the appellant in C.A. No. 708, too, appears 
to be alike inasmuch as he, in the first instance, has been appointed 
against a vacant post of a Project Engineer Cadet College Killa 
Saifullah and Kohlu and then Project Director without inviting 
applications and testing merit of the deserving candidates. Doling 
out public offices to the blue-eyed without adhering to the 
transparency in the process of selection cannot be upheld. The 
notification repatriating the appellants to their parent department 
thus appears to be unassailable. 
15. 
 
Absorption of the appellant in C.A. No. 711 of 2017, who 
was working as an Architect in BS-17 in the Gwadar Development 
Authority also appears to be against the relevant rules because no 
such post of an Architect in BS-17 exists in the Lasbela Industrial 
Estates Development Authority (Employee’s Service) Rules 2012, 
therefore, it cannot be upheld. Even otherwise we would be 
defeating the spirit of the judgments rendered in the cases of 
Contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and 
others(supra) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch. Vs. Province of Sindh 
(supra) by approving the appointments of the persons who 
parachuted in any autonomous body, authority or department from 
above without undergoing the process laid down by law and the 
relevant rules for appointment.  
16. 
 
Appellant in C.A. No. 778 of 2017 questioned the 
notification repatriating him to his parent department on the ground 
that he possessed the requisite qualification for being absorbed 
CIVIL APPEALS NO. 704 TO 706, 708, 711 AND 778 OF 2017. 
 
11 
against the post of Inspector in BPS-16 in ICT Police and that he has 
not disturbed the seniority of others. But it has not been disputed 
before us that he being a civil servant of non-cadre post could not 
be absorbed against a cadre post. It, therefore, cannot be 
permitted under any law notwithstanding expertise of the appellant 
in Information 
Technology 
and 
Geofencing 
is 
extraordinary. 
Paragraph 126 of the judgment rendered in the case of Contempt 
proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and others(supra) 
would cover this case in all fours. We, thus, do not feel persuaded to 
create an exception against all the accepted norms of law and 
justice.       
17. 
 
For the reasons discussed above, these appeals having 
been treated as review petitions and heard as such are dismissed 
while Civil Appeal No. 705 for the reasons recorded in para 77 is 
allowed.  
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Announced in open Court at Islamabad on ________________ 
 
JUDGE 
‘Not Approved For Reporting’ 
M. Azhar Malik