The Supreme Court of Pakistan has dismissed the Sindh government’s appeals against a ruling by the Sindh Service Tribunal, reaffirming the principle that earlier selection determines earlier seniority. The Court also criticized the provincial government for acting as an adversarial litigant rather than implementing the tribunal’s decision.
Key Ruling on Seniority
A three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, and Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui decided 18 civil petitions filed by the Government of Sindh. The detailed judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, upheld the tribunal’s decision that employees selected in an earlier recruitment process rank senior to those selected later, as per Rule 11(a) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975.
Background of the Case
The case involved appointments of lecturers (BS-17) in various subjects under the College Education Department. The Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) had recommended candidates at different times through separate selection processes. A consolidated seniority list was later prepared, prompting objections from lecturers who argued that their selection dates were not properly considered. After exhausting departmental remedies, they approached the Sindh Service Tribunal, which ruled in their favor and ordered corrections in the seniority list.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court noted that the seniority of English lecturers had already been corrected on the same basis because their appointments stemmed from a separate advertisement and earlier recruitment process. Applying a different standard to lecturers of other subjects would be contrary to the governing rules. The Court reiterated that dates of selection and recommendations are material factors in determining seniority and cannot be disregarded.
The Court also highlighted an important legal principle: in seniority disputes, the real aggrieved parties are the employees whose rights are directly affected, not the government itself. If no employee challenges a tribunal’s decision, the government should act as a neutral employer and implement the judgment instead of assuming the role of a contesting litigant.
Government’s Role Criticized
The bench observed that the Government of Sindh failed to demonstrate any legal injury or violation of its rights arising from the tribunal’s decision. Consequently, the principle of “No Aggrieved Person, No Appeal” applied. Finding no legal defect, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the Sindh Service Tribunal’s ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed all civil petitions filed by the Government of Sindh and upheld the tribunal’s decision in its entirety.
