The Supreme Court has ruled that inter seniority of government employees must be determined strictly in accordance with the law and applicable service rules, holding that the government may challenge a service tribunal’s decision only where it involves an erroneous interpretation of the law or a question of jurisdiction. It observed that the government cannot claim to be an aggrieved party in a mere seniority dispute between employees.
According to the detailed judgment, a three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui dismissed 18 civil petitions filed by the Government of Sindh and upheld the Sindh Service Tribunal’s judgment dated June 2, 2025.
The Court held that under Rule 11(a) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, an employee selected through an earlier selection process ranks senior to one selected through a subsequent process. It ruled that this principle cannot be ignored while preparing a combined seniority list.
The judgment noted that the Sindh College Education Department advertised vacancies for lecturers in 23 different subjects in 2012. However, the Sindh Public Service Commission forwarded recommendations for candidates in different subjects at different times. Some lecturers later challenged the seniority list before the Sindh Service Tribunal after their original selection dates were not taken into account, and the tribunal decided the matter in their favour.
The Supreme Court observed that while the department had correctly determined the seniority of English lecturers on the basis of their earlier selection, it failed to apply the same legal principle to lecturers of other subjects, amounting to discriminatory treatment and a violation of the applicable rules.
The Court further observed that where an employee does not challenge a tribunal’s decision, the government, acting as a fair and impartial employer, should implement the judgment rather than prolong litigation by assuming the role of a rival employee.
The judgment held that the principle of “No Aggrieved Person, No Appeal” squarely applied to the case, as only a person whose legal rights have been adversely affected is entitled to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. It found that the Government of Sindh was not an aggrieved party in the seniority dispute and had failed to raise any question of law or jurisdiction warranting interference with the tribunal’s decision.
Finding no legal infirmity, procedural irregularity or violation of law in the Sindh Service Tribunal’s judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed all 18 civil petitions filed by the Government of Sindh.
SC extends bail of suspects in fake medicines case, seeks FIA record
The Supreme Court on Monday extended the interim pre-arrest bail of three suspects accused of manufacturing counterfeit medicines and exporting them abroad until the next hearing, while directing the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to produce the complete record of the case and asking the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) to present further evidence against the accused.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail, Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi heard the case.
During the proceedings, counsel for DRAP submitted that the suspects had been involved in producing counterfeit medicines and exporting them overseas, adding that the United Nations (UN) had also issued a report concerning the medicines.
Justice Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan observed that counterfeit medicines claimed lives every day, stressing that no one could be allowed to manufacture fake drugs and endanger public health.
Counsel for the accused argued that his clients had no connection with the company in question and neither owned nor rented the premises where the alleged activities took place.
At this, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi remarked that a pharmaceutical company could not be operated in streets or residential neighbourhoods, adding that manufacturing medicines was not like making furniture that could be started without proper authorisation.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail directed DRAP’s counsel to place concrete evidence against the accused before the court, while Justice Malik Shahzad observed that if the suspects were innocent, DRAP should explain why it had registered a case against them.
Three suspects, including Zia Khalid, have filed pre-arrest bail petitions before the Supreme Court.
The court extended their interim bail until the next hearing, directed the FIA to submit the complete case record, and ordered that the matter be fixed for hearing at the earliest.