The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (FCCP) has held that a High Court, after finding a constitutional petition non-maintainable, cannot proceed to decide the merits of the dispute, as binding judicial precedents do not confer jurisdiction where none exists.
FCCP rules High Court cannot decide merits after declaring writ petition non-maintainable
ISLAMABAD, Sep 30 (APP): The Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan (FCCP) has held that a High Court, after finding a constitutional petition non-maintainable, cannot proceed to decide the merits of the dispute, as binding judicial precedents do not confer jurisdiction where none exists.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi allowed a petition filed by the Chief Executive Officer, Sukkur Electric Power Company (SEPCO), and converted it into an appeal.
The court observed that SEPCO employees whose service conditions were not governed by statutory service rules having the force of law could not invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court over disputes concerning promotion or disciplinary penalties.
The case arose from a Sindh High Court judgment concerning SEPCO employees who had been awarded minor penalties of censure and claimed that these penalties were being treated as an impediment to their promotion.
The High Court had held that the employees’ constitutional petition was not maintainable. However, it proceeded to examine the merits and observed that censure could not prevent their promotion.
The FCCP held that once the High Court had concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, it was required to stop there. Its subsequent findings on the effect of censure on promotion were therefore legally unwarranted and had no legal effect.
The court clarified that the distinction between employees governed by statutory service rules and those whose service is regulated by contract or non-statutory service policy was material. In the latter case, disputes concerning appointment, promotion and disciplinary matters ordinarily fell within the applicable service policy and contractual framework.
The court noted that SEPCO’s service policy treated censure as a minor penalty carrying a deduction of three marks in determining comparative merit for promotion. Whether the policy had been correctly applied could not be examined in constitutional jurisdiction when the petition itself was non-maintainable.
The FCCP modified the High Court judgment accordingly, affirmed its finding that the constitutional petition was non-maintainable, and set aside its findings on the merits.
