Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 IHC 255053
Court / Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court
Parties: Muhammad Asad Islam Madni vs FOP etc.
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Islamabad High Court, officially reported as 2026 IHC 255053. In this matter between Muhammad Asad Islam Madni and FOP etc., the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Islamabad High Court (Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas) AUTHOR JUDGE: Honourable Mr. Justice Inaam Ameen Minhas DECISION DATE: 18-MAR-2026 CASE NO: Writ Petition-989-2025 CITATION: 2026 IHC 255053 PARTIES: Muhammad Asad Islam Madni VS FOP etc. LAW / SECTION: - SUBJECT: Service, Promotion REMARKS: Petitioner a bps 21 additional secretary, is aggrieved that by amendment in appointment to secretary rules of 2010, wherein twice deferred were ousted from future promotion to bps 22, he has been knocked out, challenges vires ============================================================ JUDGMENT SHEET ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
1. WRIT PETITION NO. 989 OF 2025 MUHAMMAD ASAD ISLAM MADNI VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS 2. WRIT PETITION NO. 967 OF 2025 MURTAZA KHAN VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH ITS DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS 3. WRIT PETITION NO. 1085 OF 2025 SOHAIL ALI KHAN VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS 4. WRIT PETITION NO. 1144 OF 2025 ASIF SAIFULLAH PARACHA VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS 5. WRIT PETITION NO. 1160 OF 2025 M. AAMIR ZULFIQAR KHAN VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS 6. WRIT PETITION NO. 1848 OF 2025 OWAIS NAUMAN KUNDI VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION AND OTHERS 7. WRIT PETITION NO. 2522 OF 2025 MS. AMNA IMRAN VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, CABINET DIVISION AND OTHERS
W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 2
Petitioners by: M/s Shoaib Shaheen, Muhammad Umair Baloch, Barrister Hassan Shoaib and Muhammad Nasir Saleem, Advocates in writ petitions No. 989/2025 and 1848/2025. M/s Umer Ijaz Gilani, Muhammad Alee and Sanaullah Khan, Advocates in writ petitions No. 1085/2025 and 1144/2025. M/s Feisal Hussain Naqvi, Mian Samiuddin and Nasir Mehmood, Advocates in writ petition No. 1160/2025. Barrister M. Saad Buttar assisted by M/s Muiz Gull, Tahir Hussain Anchan and Barrister Danyal Sohail, Advocates in writ petition No. 2522/2025. Barrister Gulrukh Murtaza, Advocate in writ petition No. 967/2025. Respondent No. 1 (Establishment Division) by: Mr. Rashid Hafeez Additional Additional Attorney General, Mr. Mian Faisal Irfan, DAG and Mr. Fahad Khan Tareen, AAG along with Raja Saim ul Haq Satti, Legal Advisor, Establishment Division, Syed Zeeshan Raza Zaidi S.O. & Dr. Abdul Qayyum, S.O., Establishment Division. Assisted by: Muhammad Yahya Khan Niazi and Muhammad Fahad, Advocates. Date of Hearing: 27.02.2026
INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J:- This common judgment shall decide the afore- titled writ petitions, as they involve similar questions of law and facts. 2. In the first two (02) afore-titled writ petitions i.e. W.P. No.’s 989 and 967 of 2025, the petitioners have impugned the amendment made vide SRO. 255(I)/2025 dated 05.03.2025 (“Reconsideration Amendment”), whereby the Civil Servants (Promotion to the post of Secretary, BS-22 and Equivalent) Rules, 2010 (“Rules of 2010”), were amended to the effect that an officer, who had been considered twice for promotion to BS-22 and was not recommended for promotion, was rendered ineligible for further consideration and the petitioners also seek a declaration that the recommendations of the High Powered Selection Board (“HPSB”) which conducted its 29th Meeting held on 05-10.03.2025 be set aside. The petitioners also seek a direction for consideration to BS-22 with effect from the date when their junior officers were promoted with all consequential benefits. W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 3
3. In the writ petitions listed at serial number 3-7, the petitioners in addition to the afore referred prayers have also impugned the notification made vide S.R.O. 35(I)/2025 dated 21.01.2025 (“Impugned Notification”), whereby Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, MNA and Khawaja Muhammad Asif, Minister for Defense were co-opted as members of HPSB, as illegal being ultra vires the Rules of 2010, and the amendment made vide S.R.O. 243(I)/2025 dated 27.02.2025 (“the Chairman Amendment”), whereby the requirement of the Prime Minister chairing HPSB was dispensed with, as illegal having been made without the approval of the Federal Government. The petitioners also seek a declaration that the HPSB was not constituted in accordance with the law and consequently the decisions taken therein are of no legal effect. 4. Apart from the afore stated reliefs sought, in W.P. No. 1160 of 2025 the petitioner has also impugned the amendment made vide S.R.O. (I)/2017 dated 17.07.2017 (“2017 Amendment”) whereby the preamble of the Rules of 2010 and Rule 5 were amended. The petitioner also seeks that his posting as an officer on special duty (“OSD”) made vide notification dated 13.02.2023 (“OSD Notification”) be declared unlawful and the very act of continuing as OSD unlawful. Additionally, the petitioners in W.P. No. 1160 of 2025 and W.P. No. 2522 of 2025 seek a direction for the constitution of the HPSB in terms of the Rules of 2010 as framed originally and to consider afresh the cases of petitioners for promotion to BS-22. 5. Lastly, the petitioner in W.P. No. 2522/2025 has also sought a direction to the respondent to file the exact reasons for non-promotion of the petitioner along with the complete record that was placed before the HPSB for considering the petitioners case for promotion. A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 6. The facts leading to the filing of these petitions are that the Prime Minister of Pakistan in his capacity as Chairman of the HPSB invited two persons vide the Impugned Notification namely Bilal Bhutto Zardari, MNA and Khawaja Muhammad Asif, Minister for Defense to attend the 29th meeting of the HPSB in pursuance of Rule 5 of Rules of 2010. Thereafter, vide the Chairman Amendment the Prime Minister amended the Rules of 2010, and the requirement regarding Prime Minister chairing the HPSB was dispensed with and the entry W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 4
(a) of rule 5(1) was amended, which now reads as “(a) Prime Minister or a Federal Minister authorized by him in his behalf as Chairman.” Thereafter, on 10.03.2025, a Press Release was issued by the Establishment Division, stating the results of the 29th Meeting of HPSB. This Press Release showed that multiple juniors to the petitioners were promoted instead of the petitioners. The petitioners in all these petitions are civil servants presently serving in BS-21 and were eligible to be considered for promotion to BS-22 by the HPSB. The Board, after deliberation in its 29th meeting decided not to recommend the petitioners for promotion and consequently their cases were sent to the competent authority, i.e. the Prime Minister, for consideration of the recommendations who accorded his approval and consequently the recommendations of the HPSB stood affirmed. From the Press Release it also transpired that the meeting was presided over by Muhammad Ishaq Dar the Deputy Prime Minister. B. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES I. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS 7. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners advanced the following submissions, which are reproduced in consolidated form for the sake of convenience:- i) The first argument advanced by the learned counsels was that the Impugned Amendments are ultra vires the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (“the Act”) and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (“Constitution”). They contended that according to the well-settled canon of delegated legislation, a piece of subordinate legislation may only be amended by the same authority that enacted it. In this regard they submitted that the Rules of 2010 were framed by the Federal Government in exercise of powers delegated by the President under Section 25(1) of the Act. Since the Rules of 2010 were promulgated by the Federal Government and not by the Prime Minister in his individual capacity, the Impugned Amendments issued by the Prime Minister alone are ultra vires the parent statute and the Cconstitution. Reliance was placed on the case of Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan, (PLD 2016 SC 808) in which the Honorable Supreme Court authoritatively held that the Federal Government comprises the Prime Minister and the Federal Cabinet W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 5
collectively. The Prime Minister is the head of the Cabinet but is not, in himself, a surrogate or substitute for the Federal Government. He cannot unilaterally exercise powers that are vested in the Cabinet as a whole. Thus, the Impugned Amendments, having been made by the Prime Minister without Cabinet sanction, are void ab initio for want of competence. ii) With regards to the Chairman Amendment notified on 27.02.2025, which substituted Rule 5(1)(a) of the Rules of 2010 to provide that the HPSB may be chaired by the Prime Minister or a Federal Minister authorized by him in that behalf, the learned counsels contended that the President delegated rule-making authority to the Federal Government under Section 25 of the Act. That authority was not, and could not be, further sub-delegated by the Prime Minister in his individual capacity. The Impugned Amendments are accordingly a nullity in the eyes of law and this principle delegatus non potest delegare operates with full force in the present context which states that an authority to which a power has been delegated cannot further delegate that power. iii) The learned counsels regarding the Reconsideration Amendment notified on 05.03.2025, submitted that the amendment provides that an officer who has been deferred or not recommended on two occasions by the HPSB shall be rendered permanently ineligible for further consideration for promotion to BPS-22 which is irrational and violative of the petitioner’s fundamental rights. The learned counsels submitted that this amendment is arbitrary, unreasonable, and irrational on its face, and offends Articles 4, 9, 10-A, 12, 25, and 27 of the Constitution. They argued that a civil servant may be deferred by the HPSB for a variety of reasons entirely unrelated to his or her merit, fitness, or suitability for promotion. These include incompleteness of the service record, the officer's absence on ex-Pakistan leave, and pendency of disciplinary or criminal proceedings not yet resulting in conviction, the officer being on deputation or training, or the temporary unavailability of posts. The Reconsideration Amendment, in sweeping and indiscriminate terms, treats all deferrals as equivalent to a finding of unsuitability, and permanently bars the officer from future consideration. It was contended W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 6
that this conflation of procedurally motivated deferrals with merit-based rejections is logically indefensible and constitutionally impermissible. iv) Furthermore, the learned counsels argued that by imposing a permanent disqualification in consequence of two prior considerations, even where no finding of unfitness was ever communicated to the officer, the Reconsideration Amendment operates as the functional equivalent of a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. It is settled law that no major penalty may be imposed upon a civil servant without affording him a notice of the allegations against him and a reasonable opportunity of being heard. They submitted that the Reconsideration Amendment imposes precisely such a penalty, the permanent termination of promotional prospects without any process whatsoever. This constitutes a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial and due process. v) Learned counsels further argued that the retrospective application of the Reconsideration Amendment is constitutionally prohibited. They argued that the Impugned Amendments have been applied retrospectively to the petitioners, in that the working papers for the consideration of the petitioners’ cases had been prepared and finalized in the week preceding 05.03.2025, and the eligibility of the petitioners had been fully established under the Rules of 2010 as they then stood. They submitted that the Reconsideration Amendment was notified on 05.03.2025, the very day of the HPSB meeting, and were applied to exclude the petitioners from consideration despite their pre-existing eligibility. Moreover, they submitted that the retrospective operation of such legislation is expressly prohibited by Article 12 of the Constitution, and the Honorable Supreme Court has consistently struck down such measures. vi) The next argument advanced was that the 29th meeting of HPSB was coram non judice since the HPSB was not constituted in accordance with the law and the Impugned Decisions are void ab initio. In this regard they submitted that the Rules of 2010, as originally promulgated, provide unambiguously that the Prime Minister of Pakistan shall be the Chairman of the HPSB. The SRO No. 243(I)/2025 purportedly amended this W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 7
provision to allow the Prime Minister to authorize “a Federal Minister” to chair the Board in his place. However, even accepting the validity of this amendment arguendo, the 29th meeting was presided over not by a Federal Minister but by the Deputy Prime Minister, Muhammad Ishaq Dar. Learned counsels submitted that the office/post of “Deputy Prime Minister” is not a constitutionally recognized post under the Constitution, and the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold the office of “Prime Minister” nor has he been shown to have received any lawful authorization from the Prime Minister to preside over the HPSB in compliance with the amended rules. The meetings were accordingly presided over by a person who had no legal authority to do so, rendering all proceedings and recommendations void ab initio and coram non judice. vii) Learned counsels further submitted that participation of unauthorized persons vitiated the proceedings. In this regard they submitted that Rule 5 of the Rules of 2010, as originally framed, permits the Chairman of the HPSB to invite officers holding posts in BPS-22 for consultation where deemed appropriate. The 2017 amendment to the said rule expanded this provision marginally to allow the Chairman to additionally invite Federal Ministers, Ministers of State, Advisors, and Special Assistants to the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding these provisions, the meetings of the HPSB of 05.03.2025 and 10.03.2025 were attended by Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who at the material time held the office of Member of the National Assembly and not any of the offices specified in Rule 5. His presence in the deliberations of the HPSB was entirely without legal authority and in flagrant violation of the Rules of 2010. The participation of an intruder in proceedings of a statutory body is sufficient, in itself, to vitiate the entire proceedings and render the recommendations of such body a nullity. In addition, the Impugned Notification of 21.01.2025 inviting Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and Khawaja Muhammad Asif to attend the upcoming HPSB meeting was issued by the Prime Minister in purported exercise of the Chairman's power under Rule 5. However, the Prime Minister did not chair the actual meeting of 05.03.2025. Since the power under Rule 5 to invite additional participants is personal to the Chairman, and since the Chairman of the 05.03.2025 meeting was, in fact, W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 8
the Deputy Prime Minister, the invitations issued by the Prime Minister on 21.01.2025 had no legal efficacy for purposes of that meeting. They further submitted that the Impugned Notification through which elected politicians were invited not only politicizes the HPSB, but the same does not qualify under Rule 5 since the invited members are not officers in BPS-22 and unauthorized to participate in deliberations on the fitness and suitability of civil servants for promotion. The Rules of 2010 were framed expressly to insulate senior bureaucratic appointments from political interference, in the spirit of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Tariq Aziz- ud-Din case reported as 2010 SCMR 1301. Thus, they submitted that the 29th meeting of HPSB was void ab initio and coram non judice. viii) The next argument advanced by the learned counsels was that the HPSB violated the principles of natural justice. The learned counsels argued that the HPSB was bound to act within the four corners of the law but their actions exhibit a capricious and unfettered exercise of discretion. Reliance was placed on the case of Tariq Aziz-ud-Din (ibid), wherein the Court held that civil servants, while they do not possess an absolute right to promotion, are vested with an indefeasible right to be fairly and lawfully considered for promotion. Learned counsels submitted that withholding of promotion from a civil servant who is otherwise eligible and senior constitutes a major penalty within the meaning of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and cannot lawfully be imposed upon such a civil servant except in accordance with due process of law, upon the basis of tangible material, and after affording the concerned officer an opportunity to be heard. However, in the cases at hand, no reasons have ever been communicated, no adverse material was placed before the petitioners, and no opportunity to rebut any such material was afforded to them. The non-recommendation of the petitioners in favor of their juniors has been affected without a shred of recorded reasoning capable of withstanding scrutiny. They argued that the Courts have consistently and emphatically deprecated the non- communication of reasons for deferment or supersession as being violative of Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution and of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which mandates that every authority W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 9
exercising statutory power shall do so reasonably, fairly, and justly, and shall record reasons for its decisions. The impugned recommendations of the HPSB are thus arbitrary, in excess of jurisdiction, and liable to be set aside. ix) Lastly, the learned counsels submitted that the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the Impugned Amendments and the proceedings of the HPSB meeting is tainted with mala fide. In particular, the attention of this Court is drawn to the following; the amendment of 05.03.2025 was notified on the very day that the HPSB met, apparently in reaction to the orders of this Court in writ proceedings then pending; the working papers for the petitioners consideration had been completed in the preceding week, demonstrating their eligibility under the then- prevailing rules; and the amendment was applied on the very day of its notification, with the admitted purpose of excluding the petitioners from consideration. These facts, taken together, compel the inference that the Impugned Amendments were designed to circumvent judicial scrutiny and to favor particular blue eyed officers by engineering the disqualification of the petitioners and the deliberate circumvention of these safeguards vitiates the entire exercise. II. ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS 8. Conversely, the learned Additional Attorney General raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petitions by contending that the petitioners are civil servants whose terms and conditions of service are governed exclusively by the Act, and the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution is squarely attracted, therefore, matters relating to the terms and conditions of service, including promotion and determination of suitability, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal (“FST”). He submitted that u/s 23-B of the Act only FST has jurisdiction to hear the cases of the civil servants. It was further contended that the minutes of meeting of the HPSB which contains its assessment and collective judgment have been declared confidential in nature by the Minister-in-Charge and in the absence of any explicit rule in the Rules of 2010, the same are not liable to be disclosed. The learned Additional Attorney General without prejudice to the afore-stated W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 10
objection, contended on merits that the evaluation of the petitioners was undertaken within a regulated framework of structured discretion prescribed by the Rules of 2010 as mandated by the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Federation of Pakistan vs. Dr. Muhammad Arif & Others, (2017 SCMR 969). He further contended that the HPSB acted strictly in accordance with law without discrimination or mala fide and decisions regarding promotions rest firmly within the domain of the competent executive authorities whose professional expertise, institutional knowledge, and familiarity with the functional requirements of senior civil service positions ensure fairness, impartiality, and integrity in the process. 9. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. C. OBJECTIONS I. MAINTAINABILITY 10. Before entering upon the merits of the matter, it is necessary to first address the objection as to the maintainability raised by the learned Additional Attorney General who contended that this Court’s jurisdiction was ousted by Article 212 of the Constitution in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of the civil servants and that the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the FST which is competent to decide the matter even in the presence of challenge to the vires of Impugned Amendments. However, the same is misconceived since for this contention to hold merit, the matter must fall within the jurisdiction of FST. Only if this threshold is met would the second question arise i.e. whether the FST is competent to decide the questions of vires. It is settled position that the FST is competent to examine questions of vires incidental to matters falling within its jurisdiction1 but that competence cannot be invoked to manufacture jurisdiction over a matter that falls outside the FST’s statutory jurisdiction.
1 Iqan Ahmed Khurram vs. Government, (PLD 1980 SC 153), Muhammad Hashim Khan vs. Province of Balochistan, (PLD 1976 Quetta 59), Muhammad Hashim Khan vs. Province of Balochistan, (PLD 1976 Quetta 59), Muhammad Anis vs. Abdul Haseeb, (PLD 1994 SC 539) and I.A. Sherwani and others vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division, Islamabad and others, (1991 SCMR 1041). W.P. NO’S. 989, 967, 1144, 2522, 1085, 1848 AND 1160 OF 2025 11
11. At this juncture it is appropriate to state that apart from the challenge to vires these cases pertain to promotion of the petitioners to posts in BS-22 and essentially relates to the determination of their fitness for the posts in question. It is settled law that assessment of fitness and suitability are excluded from the jurisdiction of the FST under section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The position has been best explained by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Aftab Ahmed Maneka2 in the following manner:- “13. We first attend to the preliminary objections raised on behalf of learned Attorney-General to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions filed before the High Court on the touchstone of Article 212 of the Constitution. Article 212(1)(a) is an enabling provisions empowering the legislature to establish Tribunals exercising exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of persons who are or have been in the Service of Pakistan. It is in view of this Constitutional provision that the Federal Service Tribunal Act, 1973 was enacted. Clause (2) of Article 212 of the Constitution excludes the jurisdiction of all Courts in matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of Tribunal set up under Clause (1) of Article 212 of the Constitution. It reads: "(2) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained where any Administrative Court or Tribunal is established under clause (1), no other court shall grant an injunction, make any order or entertain any…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.