ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has held that judicial power is meant to serve the cause of justice in a judicious manner.
A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and comprising Justice Syed Hassan Azhar Rizvi and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, disposed of several appeals in a case service matter titled Ms Ume Salma vs Secretary (Colleges) Education Department Sindh and others
The petitioner had filed an appeal against the judgement dated August 27, 2024, passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal at Karachi. The court had heard the matter on June 3, 2025.
“We have no disinclination to hold that the factual controversy with regard to the recruitment process and verification of documents germane to the appointments were required to be resolved by the Tribunal, being the first fact-finding forum in service matters,” said an eight-page judgement authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
The court noted that the Sindh Service Tribunal exercises exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants and ancillary issues.
The court further noted that the fundamental philosophy of the appellate jurisdiction is to ensure checks and balances by means of reevaluation and re-examination of the orders passed by the lower fora or authority.
“The wisdom of setting up a Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution, is to deal with and decide matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants,” it said.
The court held that the Service Tribunal may, on appeal, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against and for the purpose of deciding any appeal it is deemed to be a civil court.
“The astuteness of discretion in judicial power is meant to serve and advance the cause of justice in a judicious manner in aid of justice,” the court ruled.
The court noted that while examining the judgement, it has noted that the grievance, rather the contention, of the petitioners that they are fully covered in the list of the 166 employees and their credentials were already scrutinised by the competent authority, was not considered properly before dismissing the service appeals.
The court disposed of the appeals in the following terms:
The Sindh college education secretary will send a reference/ request letter to the Services General Administration & Coordination Department for constitution of a three-member committee, comprising the Sindh college education director general, additional secretary and SGA&CD deputy secretary.
Upon receiving the request letter, the SGA&CD secretary will constitute and notify the committee within ten days, the apex court said, adding that the committee will convene a meeting after issuing notices to the petitioners, and petitioners are allowed to produce, in their support, copies of all relevant documents if issued to them during the recruitment process to demonstrate the fulfillment of codal formalities at the end of the department concerned.
The court held that the committee will consider and verify whether the petitioners are covered/ included in the list of the 166 employees in view of the report compiled by the Sukkur regional director (college) which was further authenticated by the committee comprising Prof Abdul Razzak Baloch, Principal (Chairman) Govt Islamia Science College, Sukkur, Prof Syed Lutuf Ali Shah, Director Finance (Member) Directorate (College), Sukkur, and Prof Mukhtiar Ahmed Mahar, Assistant Professor (Member), Govt Education College, Sukkur, in their report dated 02.02.2016.
If it is found that cases of the petitioners are covered and included in the list of the 166 employees, they will be allowed to join service subject to verification of their documents, the court declared.
The court directed that the entire exercise should be completed within a period of two months from receiving a copy of the order with an independent application of mind and without being influenced by the Service Tribunal judgement.
As per the case, the respondent department released advertisements in different newspapers in July, 2011, whereby applications were invited against 289 situations of nonteaching staff of different posts from BPS-01 to BS-12 for recruitment in the Sindh College Education Department for Sukkur region.
The petitioners participated in the recruitment process, and according to the merit list prepared by the recruitment committee, the petitioners were selected and were issued offer letters for appointment.
After due satisfaction of the recruitment committee, they joined the college in Sukkur region and service books were also prepared. It was further alleged that many other persons were also appointed against vacant posts but the department did not release salaries of any employee.
Since the salaries were not released, the petitioners approached the Sindh High Court and filed a constitutional petition.
It was further alleged that co-appointees also filed petitions, wherein the respondent conceded all appointments and filed a list of 166 employees, dated 28.11.2014.
Therefore, the high court, vide consent order dated 16.12.2014, directed the respondents to release the salaries of 166 employees.
“While this was done, the said consent order was challenged in this court which was set aside and matter was remanded to the Service Tribunal vide order dated 13.11.2015,” the Supreme Court judgement said.
Later on, the tribunal dismissed all appeals. During pending adjudication, the tribunal framed 13-15 points, and the department constituted a committee, which scrutinised the legality of the 166 employees’ appointments as well as the appointment of 177 employees, including the petitioners, and concluded that the petitioners are at no fault, but the ex-director (colleges), Sukkur, was responsible, vide report dated 02.02.2016.
Despite that, the respondents issued show cause notices to all appointees, and after nominal hearing, removed them from service by issuing removal orders on different dates.
The departmental appeals were preferred against the removal orders which were also dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed appeals in the Sindh Service Tribunal, which were dismissed.