IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, HCJ 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 909 TO 912 OF 2020 &  
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 87 OF 2020 
(On appeal against judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the 
High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, in CP No. 246/2008 & 
334/2019) 
 
Khalilullah Kakar  
 
 
 
(In CAs 909 & 911 of 2020) 
Irfan Ali 
(In CA 910 of 2020 & Cr.O.P. 
87 of 2020) 
Abdul Haleem and another 
 
 
(In CA 912 of 2020) 
 
… Appellants/Petitioner 
 
VERSUS 
 
Provincial Police Officer, Balochistan etc 
(In all cases) 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Appellants: 
Mr. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
 
(In CAs 909 & 910 of 2020) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In person 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 911 of 2020 & Cr.O.P. 87 of 2020) 
 
 
 
 
 
Sh. Riazul Haque, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
(In CA 912 of 2020) 
 
For the Respondents: 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC  
(For respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 10, 20 in CA 909 of 
2020, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5, 8, 12 in CA 910 of 
2020 and respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 to 10, 12 in CA 
911 of 2020) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Adnan Basharat, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(For remaining repondents in CAs 909 to 912/2020)  
 
For Govt of Balochistan: Mr. Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl. A.G  
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
24.03.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this 
consolidated judgment, we intend to decide the above titled cases, 
as the issue involved in these cases is common and they have 
arisen out of the same judgment. 
 
Civil Appeal Nos. 909 to 912 of 2020 & 
Criminal Original Petition No. 87 of 2020 
2
2. 
 
Civil Appeal Nos. 909/910/911/912/2020: Through 
these appeals by leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of the 
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter to be 
referred as ‘the Constitution’), the appellants have called in question 
the judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta, whereby the Constitutional Petitions filed by 
the respondents were allowed and the Provincial Police Officer, 
Balochistan, was directed to issue a joint seniority list of Deputy 
Superintendents of Police (hereinafter to be referred as ‘DSPs’) of all 
cadres/branches.  
3. 
 
Succinctly stated the facts of the matter are that as per 
practice at some point of time there was a joint seniority list of DSPs 
belonging to different cadres/branches of the Balochistan Police 
Force. However, subsequently the seniority lists upto the rank of 
DSPs qua some of the branches was separated keeping in view the 
nature of work. The respondents being DSPs of legal/prosecution 
branch challenged the issuance of separate seniority lists by filing 
Constitutional Petition No. 246/2008 before the High Court of 
Balochistan, Quetta. The said Constitutional Petition was finally 
accepted vide judgment dated 23.04.2009. Consequently, a joint 
seniority list of DSPs was issued on 16.08.2009. The police officers 
of the rank of DSPs of different cadres challenged the judgment of 
the High Court dated 23.04.2009 by filing an application under 
Section 12(2) CPC, which was accepted vide judgment dated 
20.06.2017. Resultantly, the earlier order dated 23.04.2009 was 
recalled and the petition was directed to be amended by impleading 
the DSPs of other branches as respondents. This order was assailed 
before this Court through Civil Petition No. 5196/2017 and this 
Court maintained the same vide order dated 11.06.2018. The 
appellant department although issued joint seniority list on 
11.12.2017 but ultimately issued two separate notifications on 
06.03.2019 determining the seniority of 26 DSPs belonging to 
legal/prosecution branch in one notification whereas through the 
other notification, the seniority of 170 DSPs of other branches was 
determined separately. The DSPs of the legal/prosecution branch 
filed objections qua the separate seniority lists but without awaiting 
its fate filed Constitutional Petition No. 334/2019 before the High 
Civil Appeal Nos. 909 to 912 of 2020 & 
Criminal Original Petition No. 87 of 2020 
3
Court of Balochistan, Quetta. Both the above-said Constitutional 
Petitions were allowed vide impugned judgment and the department 
was directed to issue joint seniority lists of DSPs of all branches. 
Hence, these appeals with leave of the Court.  
4. 
 
Learned counsel for the appellants along with appellant 
in person in Civil Appeal No. 911/2020 inter alia contended that in 
all the Provinces of Pakistan including Islamabad Capital Territory, 
the seniority of prosecution/legal branch is being maintained 
separately as the qualification and training for this branch of Police 
is entirely different than that of the other branches, which are called 
general cadre; that the law also does not permit making of a joint 
seniority list; that as the respondents were civil servants, the 
learned High Court while adjudicating the constitutional petitions 
has wrongly assumed jurisdiction, which is contrary to the spirit of 
the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; that the learned 
High Court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction and authority to 
declare the separate seniority lists as illegal without considering the 
legal and factual aspects of the case. They lastly prayed that the 
impugned judgment being against the law, may be set aside.  
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents 
have defended the impugned judgment on the ground that the police 
force has already been declared one indivisible body possessing 
various limbs performing the assigned functions and each of these 
limbs of the establishment are in-fact integral part of police force and 
as such under no rule of construction they can be considered as 
separate or different cadres, therefore, there is no irregularity in the 
impugned judgment. It has been further argued that the seniority list 
with specified assignment of job is classified only to the rank of 
DSPs whereas on further promotion the same is merged into and the 
seniority list irrespective of the classification of branch becomes 
irrelevant.  
6. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have 
perused the record as well as the relevant law.  
7. 
 
The questions involved in these appeals are two fold i.e. 
(i) whether in the given facts and circumstances of this case the 
constitutional petitions were maintainable before the learned High 
Court in view of the specific bar contained in Article 212(2) of the 
Civil Appeal Nos. 909 to 912 of 2020 & 
Criminal Original Petition No. 87 of 2020 
4
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and (ii) whether 
there should be a joint seniority list of DSPs of all cadres/branches 
and the same is sustainable due to the requirement of classification, 
manner of selection, training procedure and identification through 
the same uniform and rank.  
8. 
 
As far as the first question which could hit the very 
roots of this case is the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned 
High Court of Balochistan under Article 199 of the Constitution in the 
presence of specific bar provided under Article 212(2) of the 
Constitution is concerned, there is no denial to this fact that the 
respondents being employees of Balochistan Police Force are civil 
servants and the matter pertaining to issuance of joint seniority lists 
specifically relates to their terms and conditions of service, which 
particularly rests within the jurisdiction of Balochistan Service 
Tribunal. The learned High Court mainly assumed jurisdiction on the 
ground that at the time of passing of the impugned judgment, the 
Balochistan Service Tribunal was not functional. The Service 
Tribunal was not non-functional for an indefinite period. It has been 
brought to our notice that the earlier Chairman of the Balochistan 
Service Tribunal remained performing his duties with effect from 
06.12.2016 to 05.12.2019 and thereafter the incumbent Chairman 
was appointed on 05.05.2020 whereas Constitutional Petition Nos. 
334/2019 was filed on 01.04.2019 when the Tribunal was 
operational. Similarly, Constitutional Petition No. 246/2008 was 
initially filed on 11.05.2008 and after the judgment of this Court 
dated 06.11.2018 the amended petition was filed on 24.09.2019. 
On these dates also, the Tribunal was functional. Therefore, it can 
be safely said that the very institution of the Constitutional petitions 
was against the Constitutional mandate. It is an established 
principle of law that the courts assume their jurisdiction through 
particular law conferring a particular jurisdiction. Article 212(2) of 
the Constitution specifically places an embargo on all other courts 
except Service Tribunal to grant an injunction, make any order or 
‘entertain’ any proceedings in respect of any matter relating to the 
terms and conditions of service even if they are mala fide, ultra vires 
or coram non judice. It would be in order to reproduce the said 
Article 212(2) of the Constitution, which reads as under:-  
Civil Appeal Nos. 909 to 912 of 2020 & 
Criminal Original Petition No. 87 of 2020 
5
(2) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained where 
any Administrative Court or Tribunal is established under 
clause (1), no other court shall grant an injunction, make any 
order or entertain any proceedings in respect of any matter to 
which the jurisdiction of such Administrative Court or 
Tribunal extends and all proceedings in respect of any such 
matter which may be pending before such other court 
immediately before the establishment of the Administrative 
Court or Tribunal; other than an appeal pending before the 
Supreme Court, shall abate on such establishment:  
 
Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not apply to 
an Administrative Court or Tribunal established under an Act 
of a Provincial Assembly unless, at the request of that 
Assembly made in the form of a resolution, Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament) by law extends the provisions to such a Court or 
Tribunal.” 
 
 
9. 
 
The word ‘entertain’ used in Article 212(2) of the 
Constitution is of significance importance. This means that any 
petition or proceeding relating to the terms and conditions of service 
even should not be entertained by the High Court in its constitutional 
jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. In view of the facts 
and circumstances of this case, entertaining and then proceeding 
with the constitutional petitions amounts to defeating the express 
Constitutional mandate under which Tribunal is vested with 
jurisdiction to deal with the matters of civil servants. This Court in 
the case of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch Vs. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 
456) has held as under:- 
“149. Article 212 of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction 
of High Courts and civil Courts in respect of the matters 
pertaining to terms and conditions of civil servants. In 
other words, the provisions of Article 212 do not confer a 
concurrent jurisdiction to civil Courts, High Courts and 
Tribunals. The ouster contemplated under the said Article 
is a Constitutional command, and, therefore, of necessity 
restricts the jurisdiction of civil courts and High Courts on 
the subject, which squarely falls within the exclusive 
domain of Tribunals.” 
 
10. 
 
In Asadullah Rashid Vs. Muhammad Muneer (1998 
SCMR 2129), this Court held as under:- 
“Constitutional petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution 
is not maintainable by a civil servant in relation to any 
matter connected with the terms and conditions of service 
in respect whereof the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction, in 
view of Art. 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Orders, 
even if mala fide, ultra vires or coram non judice, fell 
within the ambit of Service Tribunal and jurisdiction of 
Civil Appeal Nos. 909 to 912 of 2020 & 
Criminal Original Petition No. 87 of 2020 
6
Civil Courts including High Court is ipso facto ousted as 
result of barring provision of Art. 212 of the Constitution.” 
 
11. 
 
The same was the view of this Court in National 
Assembly Secretariat Vs. Manzoor Ahmed (2015 SCMR 253). The 
writ jurisdiction is extraordinary in its scope, it has to be exercised 
sparingly. The jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 
199 of the Constitution is an extraordinary relief and the same has 
to be exercised in aid of justice and not to interfere in jurisdictions of 
other statutory forums. When the law has provided an adequate 
remedy, constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the 
Constitution cannot be exercised as the same has to be exercised in 
exceptional circumstances, which could justify invoking the said 
jurisdiction. It has time and again been said by this Court that 
tendency to bypass remedy provided under relevant statue by 
resorting to constitutional jurisdiction is to be discouraged so that 
legislative intent is not defeated. The same is meant to be exercised 
in extraordinary circumstances and not in run of the mill cases. Even 
otherwise, we have noted that the respondents had not approached 
the learned High Court after exhausting the remedy of filing 
departmental appeal. Therefore, we are compelled to observe that 
the very constitutional petitions were not maintainable before the 
learned High Court.  
12. 
 
The second question before us is whether there should 
be a joint seniority list of DSPs of all cadres or it has to be separated 
from each other depending upon the nature of work. It is a matter of 
common practice, which is prevalent in all four Provinces and 
Islamabad Capital Territory that seniority lists of DSPs of 
legal/prosecution branch is being prepared separately as compared 
to DSPs of other branches. Section 2(b) of the Baluchistan Deputy 
Superintendents of Police Service Rules, 1978, speaks about 
different branches of the Police. It says, ““branch” means a branch 
of the Department organized as a separate and self-contained unit 
such as General Branch, Prosecution Branch, Tele communication 
Branch, Special Branch, Motor Transport Branch, Finger Print 
Branch and Anti Corruption Branch.” So, the very enactment, which 
deals with only the DSPs of Balochistan, itself admits about the 
different branches. The aforesaid DSP Rules, 1978, Balochistan 
Civil Appeal Nos. 909 to 912 of 2020 & 
Criminal Original Petition No. 87 of 2020 
7
Police Act, 2011 and the Police Rules, 1934, are silent on the point 
as to whether there should be separate or joint seniority lists of 
DSPs but the language used therein about the different branches of 
the police force and the fact that the mode of recruitment, nature of 
job, duties and training of legal/prosecution branch of the 
Balochistan Police is different than the other branches of the police, 
leaves no room to believe that the act of issuing separate seniority 
lists is well reasoned, in line with the practice followed in other 
Provinces including Islamabad Capital Territory and Gilgit Baltistan 
and in accordance with the intent of the law. So far as the law laid 
down by this Court in Gul Hassan Jatoi (2016 SCMR 1254) is 
concerned, the issuance of separate seniority lists upto the rank of 
DSPs does not in any manner bifurcate the compactness of the Police 
force when it is established that beyond the rank of DSPs, the 
seniority list is again merged into one unit and as such supplement 
the words of this Court ‘one indivisible body’.  
13. 
 
For what has been discussed above, these appeals are 
allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside.  
 
14. 
 
Criminal Original Petition No: 87/2020: Since, the 
main appeals have been allowed, this Criminal Original Petition for 
initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents has become 
infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.  
 
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad  
Announced on 21.05.2021 
 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram