IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
(On appeal against the judgment dt. 14.03.2017 passed by the High Court of 
Balochistan Quetta in C. P. No. 1155 of 2016).  
 
 
Muhammad 
Sharif 
Tareen, 
Chief 
of 
Section 
(Acting)(BPS-19), 
Planning 
and 
Development 
Department, 
Government 
of 
Balochistan, 
Civil 
Secretariat 
Appellant 
 
                                           VERSUS 
 
Govt. of Balochistan thr. its Chief Secretary, and 
another.  
 
 
Respondent 
For the Appellant(s) 
: Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, ASC 
Ahmed Nawaz Chaudhry, AOR (absent)  
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s)  
: Mr. AmanullahKanrani, AG Balochistan 
Mr. Ayaz Khan Swati, Addl. AG Balochistan 
 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 26.05.2017 (Judgment Reserved). 
 
J U D G M E N T  
 
 
 
 
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.- This appeal with the leave of the 
court has arisen out of the judgment dated 8.3.2017 of a Division 
Bench of the High Court of Balochistan whereby it dismissed the writ 
petition filed by the appellant by holding that his remedy in view of 
the dicta rendered in the cases i.e. Contempt proceedings against 
the Chief Secretary Sindh and others (2013 SCMR 1752), Ali Azhar 
Khan Baloch. Vs. Province of Sindh  (2015 SCMR 456) and Muzaffar 
Hussain Vs. Federation of Pakistan (Crl.O.P. No.31 of 2016)decided on 
10.05.2016 lay in review before the Supreme Court of Pakistan.   
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
2 
2. 
 
The learned Sr. ASC appearing on behalf of the 
appellant contended that where the appellant was appointed as 
Agricultural 
Officer 
(BPS-17) 
by 
initial 
recruitment 
on 
the 
recommendations of Balochistan Public Service Commission in the 
Balochistan 
Agricultural 
and 
Cooperative 
Department 
vide 
Notification No. PSC(Rectt:)2006/93, dated 29.07.2006 and then 
absorbed against the post of Research Officer (BPS-17) in the 
Planning and Development Department vide notification dated 
10.09.2007 without affecting the seniority of the Research Officers 
already working in the department, his case is not covered by the 
dicta rendered in the cases of Contempt proceedings against the 
Chief Secretary Sindh and others,Ali Azhar Khan Baloch. Vs. Province 
of Sindh andMuzaffar Hussain Vs. Federation of Pakistan (supra), 
therefore, the notification repatriating him to his parent department 
cannot hold the field. He next contended that the case of the 
appellant shall be fully protected by the dicta rendered in the case 
of Ch. Muhammad Akram. Vs. Registrar, Islamabad High Court and 
others (PLD 2016 SC 961) and Suo Motu Case No. 13 of 2016, decided 
on 31.03.2017 when he possessed the qualification required for 
appointment of Research Officer in the Planning and Development 
Department.  
3. 
 
The learned Addl. A. G. appearing on behalf of the 
Government of Balochistan contended that where codal formalities 
in absorbing the appellant were not complied with, the case of the 
appellant is fully covered by the dicta rendered in the cases of 
Contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and 
others,Ali Azhar Khan Baloch. Vs. Province of Sindh andMuzaffar 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
3 
Hussain Vs. Federation of Pakistan (supra), therefore, the High Court 
rightly declined to exercise jurisdiction.  
4. 
 
We have gone through the record carefully and 
considered the submissions of the learned Sr. ASC for the appellant 
as well as the learned Addl. A. G. for the Govt. of Balochistan.  
5. 
 
Appellant who holds Master degrees in Economics and 
Business Administration was appointed as Agricultural Officer (BPS-17) 
by initial recruitment on the recommendations of the Balochistan 
Public Service Commission in the Balochistan Agricultural and 
Cooperative Department vide Notification No. PSC(Rectt:)2006/93,  
dated 29.07.2006. A year later, he was appointed by transfer as 
Research Officer (BPS-17) in Planning & Development Department 
and was placed at the bottom of the seniority list of the Research 
Officers already working in the department vide notification No. 
P&D-SOA.1(41)/2007, dated 10.09.2007. He has been working as such 
till the date the notification repatriating him to the parent 
department pursuant to the judgments rendered in the cases of 
Contempt proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and 
others,Ali Azhar Khan Baloch. Vs. Province of Sindh andMuzaffar 
Hussain Vs. Federation of Pakistan (supra) was issued. His stance 
before us is that his case is not hit by the above said judgments when 
he possesses the requisite qualification. The questions thus emerging 
for the consideration of this Court are:- 
i) 
What is the nature of his appointment? 
ii) 
Whether 
the 
appellant 
possessed 
the 
requisite 
qualification? 
iii) 
Whether he was appointed by transfer as Research Officer 
in the Planning & Development Department without 
complying with the codal formalities, in case the answer is 
in the affirmative what would be the effect of that? 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
4 
iv) 
Whether the appellant is hit by the judgment rendered in 
the cases i.e. Contempt proceedings against the Chief 
Secretary Sindh and others (2013 SCMR 1752), Ali Azhar 
Khan Baloch. Vs. Province of Sindh  (2015 SCMR 456) and 
Muzaffar Hussain Vs. Federation of Pakistan (Crl.O.P. No. 31 
of 2016)decided on 10.05.2016, if not where does his 
remedy lie? 
v) 
What is a cadre post and what is a non-cadre post? 
vi) 
What is the method of appointment for a cadre post, what 
is the mode of appointment against a non-cadre post? 
 
6. 
 
Before we answer the questions it is worthwhile to see 
what is the ratio of the judgment rendered in the case of Contempt 
proceedings against the Chief Secretary Sindh and others (supra) 
and what has been summed up therein is well illustrated in 
paragraph 126 thereof which read as under :-  
“126. 
From the above discussion, the aforesaid legislative 
instruments on  the  issue  of  absorption  are liable   to  be  struck  
down being violative of Constitutional provisions referred to 
hereinabove, therefore, we hold as under:-- 
 (i) 
That the Sindh Government can only appoint a person by 
absorption by resorting to Rule 9A of the Rules of 1974. 
(ii) 
Sindh Government cannot order absorption of an 
employee who is a non-civil servant, however, an employee of an 
autonomous body can be absorbed in Sindh Government subject 
to conditions laid down under Rule 9-A of the Rules of 1974. 
(iii) 
Sindh Government cannot absorb a civil servant of non-
cadre post to any cadre which is meant for the officers who are 
recruited through competitive process. 
(iv) 
Any backdated seniority cannot be granted to any 
absorbee and his inter-se seniority, on absorption in the cadre shall 
be maintained at the bottom as provided under the Rules 
regulating the seniority. 
(v) 
No civil servant of a non-cadre post can be transferred out 
of cadre to be absorbed to a cadre post which is meant for 
recruitment through competitive process. A civil servant can be 
transferred out of cadre to any other department of the 
government subject to the restrictions contained under Rule 9(1) 
of the Rules of 1974. 
(vi) 
The legislature cannot enlarge the definition of "civil 
servant" by appointing a non-civil servant through transfer on the 
basis of absorption conferring him status of civil servant pursuant to 
the impugned legislation which is violative of the scheme of civil 
service law as provided under Articles 240 and 242 of the 
Constitution.” 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
5 
7. 
 
Similarly what is the ratio of the judgment rendered in the 
case of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch. Vs. Province of Sindh  (supra) has 
been summed up in its paragraphs No. 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 
139 which are reproduced as under:-  
“117. We have heard the learned Counsel representing beneficiaries on 
the scope of Rule 9-A of the Rules. Under Rule 9-A, a person who has been 
rendered surplus on account of abolition of his post, in any Office or 
Department of the Government or autonomous body and/or on account 
of permanently taking over of the administration of such autonomous 
body wholly or partially by the Government, can be appointed by transfer 
to any post in a Department or Office in the Government subject to his 
eligibility and qualifications as laid down under Rule 3(2) for appointment 
to such Office. It is further provided under Rule 9-A of the Rules that such 
person shall be appointed to a post of equivalent or comparable basic 
scale and, in case such post is not available, then to a post of lower Basic 
Scale. Rule 9-A of the Rules provides further restriction to the seniority of 
such person to the post by reckoning his seniority at the bottom of the 
seniority list from the date of such appointment, with a further rider that his 
previous service, if not pensionable, shall not be counted towards pension 
and gratuity. We have dealt with the aforesaid issue in para 116 of the 
judgment under review and have set parameters of Rule 9-A of the Rules 
in para 126 of the judgment under review. 
118. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the 
petitioners, we need to further clarify the scope of Rule 9-A of the Rules. 
Rule 9-A of the Rules has been introduced with the object to 
accommodate the persons who are rendered surplus by abolition of their 
posts or the organization in which they were working has been taken over 
by the Sindh Government. This Rule, as has been noticed, cannot be used 
as a tool to accommodate a person by abolishing his post with an object 
to appoint him by transfer to a cadre or service or post in deviation of Rule 
3(2), which is a condition precedent for appointment to such post. In 
order to exercise powers under Rule 9-A of the Rules, there has to be some 
justification for abolition of the post against which such person was 
working. This justification should come from the Department and or 
organization which shall be in consultation with the S&GAD and approved 
by the Competent Authority. Rule 9-A of the Rules does not permit 
appointment by transfer of a non-Civil Servant to any other Department 
and/or organization controlled by the Government to a post which 
restricts the transfer under Rule 3(2) of the Rules. A person can only be 
appointed by transfer under Rule 9-A, if he has the eligibility, matching 
qualifications, expertise coupled with the conditions laid down under Rule 
3(2) for appointment to such post. The Competent Authority under Rule 9-
A of the Rules while ordering appointment by transfer cannot lose sight of 
the conditions prescribed under Rules 4, 6(A) and 7. Therefore, any 
appointment by transfer under Rule 9-A of the Rules in violation of the 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
6 
aforesaid conditions is a nullity, and the conclusion reached by us in para 
126 of the judgment under review has to be read in addition to the 
findings recorded herein above. 
 ABSORPTION 
119. The learned Additional Advocate-General, as well as the counsel 
representing the petitioners had argued that the Competent Authority 
had the powers under Rule 9(1) of the Rules to absorb any person from 
within and/or outside the Province through appointment by transfer. We 
have already dealt with the scope of Rule 9(1) of the Rules, which permits 
appointment by transfer subject to the conditions prescribed therein. It 
does not permit absorption from one cadre to another cadre. The 
Competent Authority in the cases of the petitioners has ordered 
absorption by relaxing the rules, which is in deviation of the scheme of the 
Act framed pursuant to the dictates of Article 240, read with the 
qualifications incorporated in the Rules of 1974. We may observe that 
section 5 of the Act does not give any discretion to the Selection Authority 
to bypass the restriction by relaxing the Rules. If such discretion is allowed 
to prevail, it would destroy the fabric of Civil Service, which is protected 
by the mandates of Articles 240 and 242 of the Constitution. It is also a 
misconception that Rule 9-A permits transfer of a non-Civil Servant to a 
Cadre, Service or Post meant for a Civil Servant, recruited in the Cadre or 
Service or Post after competitive process. Such an appointment by 
transfer in the nature of absorption would only be permissible, if the pre-
conditions laid under Rule 9-A of the Rules are met. 
120.  
At the time of hearing of Petitions No.71 of 2011 and others the 
learned Additional Advocate-General, as well as the petitioners 
appearing in these Petitions, attempted to justify absorption on the basis 
of legislative instruments, which were declared unconstitutional. In these 
review proceedings, the petitioners have changed their stance claiming 
their absorption on the basis of Rule 9(1) of the Rules. We have separately 
dealt with the scope of Rule 9(1) of the Rules. Under Rule 9(1), 
appointment by transfer would only mean an ordinary transfer from one 
post to another post, subject to the restrictions contained in the Rules of 
1974. Neither a person can be absorbed under these Rules nor a Civil 
Servant or non-Civil Servant or a deputationist could be allowed to travel 
horizontally outside his cadre to penetrate into a different cadre, service 
or post through an appointment by transfer. Rule 9(1) cannot override the 
provisions of section 8 of the Act, which have been introduced by the 
Legislature for proper administration of Service law. For the aforesaid 
reasons, in addition to our findings recorded in the judgment under 
review, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to 
make out any justifiable ground to seek review of the judgment. 
 ABSORPTION IN UNIFIED GROUP 
C.R.P. 409 of 2013 Mr. AqailAwan for the petitioner 1 - 3 Criminal R.P.81 of 
2013 and C.R.P. 412 of 2013 
121.  
It 
was 
contended 
by 
MessrsAqilAwan, 
ShoaibShaheen, 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
7 
Muhammad MunirPeracha and Tariq Mehmood, learned ASCs, that the 
impugned judgment is only applicable to Civil Servants and does not 
cover non-civil servants. We, with respect, disagree with the contentions 
of the learned Counsel. The impugned judgment would be equally 
applicable to the Government Servants, employees of any statutory or 
non-statutory organization controlled by the Sindh Government, who were 
wrongly absorbed in different Cadres, Services, Posts of the Government 
Departments, Statutory Organizations against their service Rules. The 
contention of the learned counsel was that the petitioners were non-Civil 
Servants and were absorbed from different organizations to Sindh 
Councils Unified Grades Service under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 1974, read 
with Rule 12(5) of the Unified Grades Service Rules 1982. We have already 
held that the power to appoint by transfer under Rule 9(1) would only 
extend to a Civil Servant. The Sindh Councils Unified Grades Service Rules 
1982 regulate the terms and conditions of the employees appointed 
therein. Rule 3(1) provides composition of Service, whereas Sub-Rule (2) of 
Rule 3 spells out its Sub-Branches. Rule 3(4) places a restriction on the 
members for transfer from one Branch or Sub-Branch to another Branch or 
Sub-Branch within the service group. Rule 12 of the (Unified Group) Service 
Rules deals with the seniority of the members. Rule 12(5)(a) confers powers 
of transfer by Appointment on the competent authority. The petitioners, 
who were not members of the Unified Services and were wrongly 
absorbed in the Service of Unified Group, in deviation of the Service Rules 
of 1982 cannot be allowed to continue in the Unified Services Group. The 
Chief Minister or the Board cannot induct any stranger in the service of 
Unified Group either by exercising powers under Rule 9(1) of the Rules of 
1974 or by Rule 12(5) of the Rules of 1982. Any such induction is against the 
recognized norms of Service law and, therefore, the petitioners were liable 
to be repatriated to their parent departments forthwith in terms of the 
judgment under review. 'Absorption' of the petitioners under the garb of 
'Appointment by Transfer' in the Unified Services Group has directly 
affected the rights of the employees in the service, guaranteed under 
Articles 4 and 9 of the Constitution. Such act on the part of the Chief 
Minister or the Board had circumvented the very framework of the Service 
Rules of 1982 by introducing a parallel system based on discrimination and 
favourtism, which the law does not recognize. 
ABOLITION OF POSTS 
139.  
During the hearing of the Review Petitions, we have noticed that 
the Sindh Government has abolished some posts in individual cases with 
the object to accommodate civil Servant or Government Servant to 
appoint him by transfer to a post, service or cadre contrary to the 
restrictions contained in Rule of 1974 against his eligibility. The term 
'abolition' has not been defined in the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. 
However, this expression has been used in Rule 9-A of the Rules of 1974. A 
department can only abolish a post with the concurrence of the S&GAD. 
Abolition of a post is permissible in case, if the department requires 
restructuring, reform or to meet exigency of service in public interest. The 
department can abolish a post for justiciable reason. Therefore, in future if 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
8 
a post has to be abolished within the Department and/or within the 
statutory body or organization controlled by the Sindh Government, the 
Department shall seek concurrence from the S&GAD coupled with the 
reasons justifying abolition.” 
8. 
 
The quintessence of the paragraphs reproduced above 
is that the appointments made on deputation, by absorption or by 
transfer under the garb of exigencies of service in an outrageous 
disregard of merit impaired efficiency and paralyzed the good 
governance and that perpetuation of this phenomenon, even for a 
day more would further deteriorate the state of efficiency and good 
governance. Appointees thus appointed pursuant to the judgments 
mentioned above were brought to square one. The case of the 
appellant is that he has not affected the seniority of any of the 
Research Officers already working in the Department when he was 
placed at the bottom of the seniority list. But the question arises 
whether he could be absorbed as Research Officer in the Planning 
and Development Department under the relevant rules. The answer 
to the question would call for a look at the relevant rule which reads 
as under:-  
“Appointment by promotion or transfer. 7.   (1)  Promotion and 
transfers to the posts in basic pay scales 2 to 16 and equivalent 
shall be made on the recommendations of the appropriate 
Departmental Promotion Committee; and to the post in basic pay 
scales 17 and above or equivalent, shall be made on the 
recommendations of the Provincial Selection Board.  
(2)   Persons possessing “such” qualifications and fulfilling the 
conditions as laid down for the purpose of promotion or transfer to 
a post shall be considered by the Departmental Promotion 
Committee or the Provincial Selection Board, as the case may be.  
(3)   Appointments by transfer shall be made from amongst the 
persons holding appointment on regular basis in the same basic 
pay scale or equivalent or identical with the post to be filled in.” 
 
 
The rules reproduced above provide for appointment by promotions 
and transfers. In the latter case the appointment cannot become 
permanent nor could it lead to absorption because such 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
9 
appointment being a stop-gap-arrangement holds the field till the 
time a suitable person is appointed against the post. Absorption of a 
person thus appointed not only damages the fabric of civil service 
but also barricades the channels of promotion for those who sweat 
therefor but have no political links and connections to achieve the 
desired goal. The question whether the appellant was eligible to be 
appointed as a Research Officer can well be answered after looking 
at the appendix amended vide notification dated 17.10.2005 which 
reads as under :-  
“Government of Balochistan 
Services and General Administration Department 
(Regulation Section-II) 
Dated Quetta, the 17thOctober, 2005. 
Notification 
No. SOR-II(18)1/S&GAD/1438-1537.  In exercise of the powers confirmed by Section 
25 of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 (IX of 1974), the Government of 
Balochistan is pleased to amend the Balochistan Planning and Development 
Department (BPS-16) and above) Service Rules, 1984 namely:- 
For the existing Appendix the following shall be substituted:- 
S.# 
Nomenclatur
e of the post 
Minimum 
qualification 
prescribed 
for 
initial 
recruitment 
Method of recruitment 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 
1. 
Chief 
Economist 
(BPS-20) 
 
By promotion from the post of Joint 
Chief Economist. 
 
2. 
Joint 
Chief 
Economist 
(BPS-20) 
 
By 
promotion 
from 
amongst 
the 
members of the service holding the 
post of Chief of Section with at-least 17 
years service in B-17 and above on the 
basis of seniority-cum-fitness. 
3. 
Chief 
of 
Section (BPS-
18). 
 
(i)  80% by promotion from amongst the 
members of the service holding the 
post of Assistant Chief with at-least 12 
years service in B-17 and above  
(ii)   20% by transfer from other services 
of equivalent grade. 
4. 
Assistant 
Chief 
(BPS-
18) 
 
By 
promotion 
from 
amongst 
the 
members of the service holding the 
post of Research Officer with at-least 
five years service. 
5. 
Research 
Officer (BPS-
17). 
2nd Class Master’s Degree in 
Economics. 
Agricultural 
Economics, 
Statistics, 
Business 
Administration, 
Public 
Administration 
/ 
Management 
and 
Commerce 
from 
a 
recognized University.  
By initial recruitment.  
 
     By Order of 
     Governor Balochistan 
 
      Chief Secretary 
Government of Balochistan” 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 709 OF 2017 IN CIVIL PETITION NO. 1332 of 2017. 
10 
A look at the appendix reproduced above would reveal that 
vacancy of Research Officer is to be filled by initial recruitment. There 
is no scope for filling this vacancy by promotion, transfer, absorption 
or by any other method which is not provided by the relevant law 
and rules. Such appointment being hit by the judgment rendered in 
the cases of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch. Vs. Province of Sindh and 
Muzaffar Hussain Vs. Federation of Pakistan (supra) cannot be 
maintained. The appellant has thus rightly been repatriated to his 
parent department. We by treating this appeal as a petition for 
review do not find any error much less patent on the face of the 
record to change or modify the view taken earlier.  
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
JUDGE 
Announced in open Court at Islamabad on 25.09.2017.  
 
JUDGE 
‘Not Approved for Reporting’ 
M. Azhar Malik