(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, HCJ
Mr. Justice Ijaz Ui Ahsan
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed
(PPc .J)
Civil Appeal No-607 of 2021
Against judgment dated 24.02.2021 of Sindh
Service Tribunal, Karachi, passed in Service
Appeal No.888 of 2018.
Saqib Ali Khokhar, Director (Regional) /Additional 
Appellant(s)
Director (BS-19) STEVTA to be served through
Managing Director (STEVTA), Headquarters, Street
No. 19, Block-6, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi.
Versus
Inayatullah Lohar & others 
Respondent(s)
For the Appellant(s): 
Mr. M. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC
For Respondent No.1
Syed Ghulam Shabbir Shah, ASC
(via video link from Karachi) assisted
by Mr. Awwad Anwar, Advocate
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
Mr. Fauzi Zafar, Addl.AG, Sindh
08.11.202 1
For Respondents#2-4
Date of Hearing:
ORDER
IJAZ UL ARSAN, J-. This appeal by leave of
the Court arises out of a judgment of Sindh Service
Tribunal, Karachi ("the Tribunal") dated 24.02.2021.
Through the impugned judgment, a Service Appeal
bearing No.888 of 2018, filed by Respondent No.1 was
aliowed and a direction was issued to Sindh Technical
Education and Vocational Training Authority ("STEVTA")
to grant promotions, etc in accordance with the
,.1
guu,jppep; Mo.607 Qf 2023 
2
provisions of Rules framed under Sindh Civil Servants,
Act 1973 ("Act, 1973 11) and not under the provisions of
STEVTA Act and its Rules.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal
of this Appeal are that vide notification dated 24.04.2009,
the Government of Sindh transferred administrative
control of 250 institutions to STEVTA, whereby all
Technical Education and Vocational Training Colleges,
Institutes, Schools and Centers working under the
Education, Labour and Social Welfare Department of the
Government of Sindh and the District Governments with
all their assets including human resources and
administrative offices were transferred to STEVTA under
STEVTA Act, 2009. Out of the said 250 institutions, 150
were taken over from the Directorate of Manpower
Training, Labour Department and 12 institutions were
taken over from the Social Welfare Department,
Government of Sindh. Before takeover, the said
institutions were under the administrative control of their
respective Departments. In terms of Section 15(2) of
STEVTA Act, 2009 as amended in 2010, all civil servants
transferred and given in the administrative control of
STEVTA were to be governed by the provisions of the Act,
1973 and the Rules made thereunder. In terms of
STEVTA Act, 2009 employees of all institutions were
Clvii Appeal No 60701 2021 
3
C
transferred by the Government of Sindh for service under
the Authority on terms and conditions, as may be
determined by the Government which shall not be less
favourable than those admissible to them immediately
before their transfer to the Authority. Likewise, in terms
of Section 15(3), the employees transferred under
subsection 2 thereof were to continue to be employees of
the Government and liable to be transferred back to the
Government unless absorbed by consent in service of the
Authority in such manner as may be prescribed.
3. It appears that in 2012, STEVTA framed its
own Rules namely Sindh Technical Education Vocational
Training Authority Employees (Appointment, Promotion
& Transfer) Rules, 2012 ("Rules 2012"). Under the said
Rules, STEVTA changed the administrative structure of
the institution, gave new nomenclatures to the posts of
employees and broadly categorized all employees in two
different categories; one such category consisted of the
employees who had been transferred from the Directorate
of Manpower Training and the other, the employees of
Technical Education. Pursuant to the said Rules,
STEVTA granted promotions under its own rules on the
basis of seniority lists separately maintained for the two
categories. The Appellant and Respondent No.1 belonged
to two different departments of the Government of Sindh
QV? Aooeal No 507 of 2Q21 
4
and came from different cadres which had their own
rules for upward movement through promotions.
However, the Appellant was promoted under STEVTA
Rules of which Respondent No.1 was aggrieved and had
challenged the promotion of the Appellant first before the
departmental authorities and thereafter before the
Tribunal. Through the impugned judgment, the
promotion of the Appellant was declared unlawful and
the direction as noted above was issued. He is aggrieved
of the said judgment.
4. In this case, leave to appeal was granted by us
on 29.06.202 1 in the following terms:
"The Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi (the
Tribunal) has already given its judgment dated
21.10.2015 in Service Appeal No.757 of 2015 (titled
Muzaffar Ali Bhuttoo vs. Province of Sindh and others),
regarding the application of the Sindh Technical
Education and Vocational Training Authority Act, 2009
(Act of 2009), and the rules made under it in 2012.
Such judgment, as stated by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, was upheld by this Court but the Tribunal by
the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021, has
disagreed with its earlier judgment noted above,
against which the petition before this Court stood
dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends
that the Tribunal could not have taken a different view
from the one already taken by it in the matter and,
thus, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is not
sustainable. Further contends that the petitioner was
transferred to the Sindh Technical Education and
Civil Anveal No. 607012021 
5
Vocational Training Authority (STE VTA) under the Act of
2009 and under such Act, the rules have been framed
by the Sindh Government in 2012. Such rules being
applicable for the promotion to the staff of STEM and
the petitioner having been granted such promotion, the
Tribunal on the basis that STEM rules being not
applicable, was not justified in setting asicte me
promotion of the petitioner. Further contends that the
very departmental appeal filed by respondent No.1 was
time barred. He has also relied upon a judgment of this
Court reported as Muhammad Aslam v. WAPDA and
others (2007 SCMR 513).
3. The submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner require consideration. Leave to appeal is
granted to consider, inter alia, the same. The appeal
stage paper-books be prepared from the available
record with liberty to the parties to file additional
documents, if any, within a period of one month. As the
matter relates to service, the Office is directed to fix the
appeal expeditiously, preferably, after three months."
5. The learned ASC for the Appellant has
vehemently argued that in terms of STEVTA Act and the
Rules framed thereunder, the employees transferred from
different Government Departments of Sindh to STEVTA
were governed under the provisions of Section 15 of
STEVTA Act and subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) & (6) thereof
all related to the employees transferred by the
Government of Sindh for service under the Authority. He
laid great emphasis on the fact that in terms of Section
15(5) of STEVTA Act it was categorically stated that the
employees transferred under Subsection (1) of Section 15
shall cease to be employees of the Government and would
dtMAuveal No.607of 2021 
6
become employees of the Authority and shall be governed
by the rules and regulations applicable to other
employees of the Authority. He maintains that the
Tribunal not only misinterpreted the provisions of
Section 15(2) of the STEVTA Act but ignored the clear
and categoric language of subsection 5 thereof to the
effect that the nexus of employees of the Government
who were transferred to STEVTA ceased to exists for all
intents and purposes and the terms and conditions of
their service were to be governed under the STEVTA Act
and the Rules framed thereunder. He further maintains
that the impugned judgment does not take note of the
fact that another Bench of the Tribunal had taken a
totally different view which could not have been done in
the facts and circumstances of the instant case. He
further argues that the impugned judgment also does not
take notice of the principles of law laid down in Contempt
Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others
(2013 SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v.
Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456).
6, On the other hand, learned ASC for
Respondent No.1 has defended the impugned judgment.
He submits that admittedly the parties were civil servants
and just by reason of their transfer to STEVTA which is
an Authority functioning under the Government of Sindh,
CYvil Anneal No.607 of 202) 
7
they could not have been taken out of purview of the Act,
1973 and subjected to a different set of rules which may
or may not have been in consonance with the process of
promotion as provided under the Act, 1973 and the Rules
framed thereunder.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties as well as the learned Additional Advocate
General, Sindh and have gone through the case record.
In the first place, we may note that by virtue of an
amendment in STEVTA Act, 2009 subsections (4), (5) and
(6) of Section 15 thereof were omitted with the obvious
result that the rule which envisaged that employees
transferred to STEVTA shall cease to be employees of the
Government was removed from the statute book. After
omission of the said three subsections, the only clear
clause that remained governing the status of the
employees transferred to STEVTA was subsection (3) of
Section 15, which is to the effect that employees
transferred under subsection (2) to STEVTA shall
continue to be employees of the Government and could
be transferred back to the Government unless absorbed
by consent in service of the Authority in such manner as
may be prescribed. It is not the case of the Appellant that
he had been absorbed in the Authority with consent as
envisaged under Section 15(3) of STEVTA Act.
S
uil Anneal No.607 of 2021 
8
8. Admittedly, the Appellant and Respondent
No.1 belonged to two different departments, different
cadres and continued to be governed under the Act, 1973
and the Rules framed thereunder despite their
transfer/ deputation, etc with STEVTA. Such employees
had to be promoted through their parent channels under
the Rules framed under Act, 1973. We, therefore find
ourselves in agreement with the finding recorded by the
Tribunal that granting of promotion to civil servants who
had been transferred to STEVTA for the time being under
the Rules framed by STEVTA was illegal and without
lawful authority. In this context, reference may usefully
be made to the principles of law laid down in Muhammad
Bachal Memon v. Tanveer Hussain Shah (2014 SCMR
1539) where it was categorically held that the terms and
conditions of civil servants can only be altered by an Act
of the Parliament enacted in exercise of powers under
Article 240 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of
Pakistan, 1973. It has neither been argued nor is it the
case of the Appellant that STEVTA Act and the Rules
framed thereunder were enacted in exercise of powers
available under Article 240 of the Constitution. In this
view of the matter, it is clear that administrative changes,
transfers and postings of civil servants to different
departments, agencies or authorities working as a part of
the Government or under the Government cannot change
cSiAiAvpeal No. 5O7OfW21 
9
the service structure and the conditions of service
including seniority of civil servants which can only be
done by a statutory instrument in terms of Article 240 of
the Constitution.
9. It is clear and obvious to us that the Provincial
Assembly of Sindh did not make any amendments in the
Act, 1973 or the Rules framed thereunder in order to
change, modify or alter the terms and conditions of
service of those transferred to STEVTA. We are therefore
in no manner of doubt that for the purpose of promotion,
STEVTA could not exclude the applicability of the Act,
1973 and the Rules farmed thereunder and apply its own
rules to the Appellant as well as Respondent No. 1. All
employees of STEVTA who had been transferred/ posted
to STEVTA from different departments of Sindh
Government continued to be employees of the
Government and various aspects of their service
including seniority and promotion are governed by the
Act, 1973 and they have to follow the channels of
promotion available in their own departments and cadres
under the Act, 1973 and the Rules made thereunder.
10. We have also gone through the judgments
cited by learned ASC for the Appellant and find that they
are of no help to the case of the Appellant and are
distinguishable on law as well as fact. Further, reliance
idLAvoesl No.60 ?L2Q21
10
of the learned ASC on a judgment of the Tribunal
dated 21.10.2015 in Appeal No.757 of 2015 is also
misplaced on account of the fact that it proceeded on
different sets of facts and circumstances, which were
limited to that particular case and did not lay down
the entire law on the subject. We also notice that the
grievance of the Appellant in the said matter related
to transfer of certain employees/ Respondents who
belonged to the academic cadre and their promotion
to posts in administrative cadre was challenged,
which according to him, was not permitted. However,
the question before the Tribunal in that case was not
whether the parties were governed by the provisions of
STEVTA Act or the Act, 1973 and the Rules framed
thereunder. We also find that the impugned judgment
of the Tribunal dated 24.02.2021 is well reasoned,
proceeds on correct principles of law on the subject
and does not suffer from any legal or jurisdictional
defect or error that may furnish basis or justification
for interference by this Court. The learned ASC for
Appellant has also failed to point out any illegality in
the impugned judgment that may furnish ground,
basis or justification to interfere in our appellate
jurisdiction.
civilAnvealNo.6070f2021 
11
11. Above are the reasons for our short order of
even date, which for ease of reference is reproduced as
under:
"We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties so also the learned Additional Advocate
General, Sindh, and have also gone through the
record of the case. For reasons to be recorded later,
the appeal is dismissed."
ISLAMABAD THE
8th of November, 2021
ZR/ *
...jNet Approved For Reporting'