ABDULLAH JUMANI vs PROVINCE OF SINDH art — 2024 PLC(CS) 900 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ABDULLAH JUMANI VS PROVINCE OF SINDH art. 199---Suo motu jurisdiction---High Court does not possess any suo motu jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 900 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABDULLAH JUMANI VS PROVINCE OF SINDH art. 199---Vires of law---Judicial review---Scope---If the constitutionality of any law is challenged in the High Court, the Court can scrutinize and survey such law and also strike it down if it is found to be offending the Constitution for absenteeism of law-making and jurisdictive competence or is in violation of fundamental rights---Where the vires of a law are challenged, the burden always rests upon the person making such challenge to show that the same was violative of any pf the fundamental rights or the provisions of the Constitution and where more than one interpretation is possible, the Court must prefer the interpretation which favours the validity without attributing mala fide to the legislature. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 900 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABDULLAH JUMANI VS PROVINCE OF SINDH S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 199---Deputy District Attorneys, posts of---Regularization in service---High Court exercised suo motu powers under Article 199 of the Constitution to declare the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 ('the 2013 Act')to be ultra vires---Constitutionality---Case record showed that neither the petitioners (contract employees) approached the High Court to challenge the vires of the 2013 Act nor did any other person challenge it---On the contrary, the 2013 Act was in field since 2013 and under the same law, various cases of numerous contractual or ad-hoc employees must have been dealt with by the government---In order to examine the competency and antecedents of the contractual employees, Scrutiny Committees were also constituted---It was also not disputed by the Government that the petitioners in the High Court claimed to have been performing their contractual obligations since 2009 regularly---Petitioners approached the High Court for regularization on the backing of the 2013 Act, therefore, the observation of the High Court deducing the relationship of master and servant is not the correct exposition of law---When a notice under Order XXVII-A, C.P.C., was issued to the Advocate General, Sindh, on the issue of maintainability, he allegedly argued that the 2013 Act is ultra vires despite knowing the fact that it is not a new law but is in field since 2013 and various employees have acquired the benefit of this law---High Court by striking down the 2013 Act in its suo motu jurisdiction has, in fact, passed a judgment in rem which literally binds the world as opposed to affecting only the rights and judgments inter parties---Importantly, High Court under Article 199 could not assume suo motu jurisdiction---Case before the High Court was to consider whether the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services and obviously, if no case was made out, the petitions could have been dismissed---However, not only were the petitions dismissed but the law was also declared ultra vires which disturbed and traumatized a long chain of employees who are regularized or were being regularized since 2013 by the Government of Sindh in its different departments/ministries under the same law---Impugned judgment has deprived a long chain of employees and virtually made them jobless without providing any right of audience to them which was a grave violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution and also amounts to the contravention of the principle of natural justice and due process of law---Impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded to the High Court for deciding the Constitution Petitions afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties---Appeals were allowed. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 900 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case ABDULLAH JUMANI VS PROVINCE OF SINDH Judicial overreach---Jurisdiction of every Court is delineated and established to adhere to and pass legal orders---Transgressing or overriding the boundary of its jurisdiction and authority annuls and invalidates the judgments and orders---Courts commit judicial overreach when they exercise powers beyond the compass of powers and jurisdiction entrusted to the courts through the law and the Constitution.

ABDULLAH JUMANI vs PROVINCE OF SINDH art — 2024 PLC(CS) 900 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC