SYED SAAD ALI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY — 2026 SCMR 22 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.

SYED SAAD ALI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY. S. 27---Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2000, Regulation 21(1)---Contract employment---Vires of law, challenge to---Provision limiting contract service to maximum five years---High Court's omission to adjudicate upon question of vires of law---Effect and validity---Doctrine of sub-silentio---Applicability and scope. The provision of law, i.e., Regulation 21(1) of the Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2000, limiting contract service to a maximum period of five years was challenged by employees. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis in various posts within the Civil Aviation Authority after qualifying a merit-based recruitment process. Thereafter, they challenged Regulation 21(1) of the revised Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2019, which limited contract service to a maximum of five years, seeking declaration that their appointments be treated as regular and that the impugned regulation was ultra vires the Constitution for infringing their fundamental rights. The petitioners' contracts were initially for two years and were extended periodically, but subsequently further renewal was denied. The petitioners contended that the posts held by them were permanent in nature and that their continued service warranted regularization. They further contended that a regulation enabling fixed-term contracts for permanent posts was unreasonable and without statutory backing. The High Court, while dismissing the petitions, confined itself to holding that the Civil Aviation Authority had no statutory rules, without adjudicating upon the specific plea challenging the vires of Regulation 21(1) of the Regulations. Held: It was an admitted position that the High Court neither considered the plea regarding vires of the impugned regulation nor discussed the same in the judgment. The omission of the High Court to address and decide the specific question of law raised before it attracted the doctrine of sub-silentio. A judgment rendered without specifically and precisely considering a question of law raised for determination lacks authoritative value on that particular issue. The Supreme Court held that where a Court decides a lis without appreciating or addressing a crucial point of law placed before it, such decision cannot be treated as a binding precedent regarding that issue. The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed, in circumstances.

SYED SAAD ALI vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY — 2026 SCMR 22 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 SCMR