PROVINCE OF PUNJAB, through SECRETARY EDUCATION, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, LAHORE and others vs SHAMSHAD BEGUM
This matter arises from a service dispute concerning the appointment of Mst. Shamshad Begum, where the Province of Punjab challenged the assumption of constitutional jurisdiction by the High Court. The core legal question addressed by the Supreme Court is whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate service matters of civil servants when an adequate and efficacious remedy is available before the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and decide such service matters in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The Court established the key principle that matters relating to the terms and conditions of service must be agitated before the Service Tribunal constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution, and constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be routinely invoked.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain service matters of civil servants?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction in matters relating to terms and conditions of service?
- Under what circumstances can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked in service disputes?
- Article 212, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
- Article 199, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
' JAVED IQBAL, J---In matters concerning terms and conditions of a civil servant an adequate and efficacious remedy is available in which Service Tribunal as constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan could be approached for the redressal of any grievance qua terms and conditions of service. The Constitutional jurisdiction as conferred upon the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can only be invoked in exceptional circumstances which are lacking in this case. In view of the said well-entrenched legal position the prime contention of Raja Abdur Rahman, learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab is not without substance that learned High Court had no jurisdiction to dilate upon and ,decided such service matters.
2. Mr. C.M. Aslam, learned counsel on behalf of respondent when confronted with the provisions as enumerated in Article 212 of the Constitution could not furnish any plausible justification for invocation of the Constitutional jurisdiction.
3. In sequel to the foregoing discussion this petition is converted into appeal and accepted. The impugned order is set aside with the direction that matter concerning appointment of Mst.
Shamshad Begum (respondent) shall be deemed to have been pending before the department which will be decided in accordance with law on merits and after affording proper opportunity of hearing. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.