Citation Name: 2026 PLC(CS) 253 SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHA

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

Citation Name: 2026 PLC(CS) 253 SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHABBIR VS REGISTRAR, ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT Rr.7 & 9---Islamabad High Court Act (XVII of 2010), Ss. 3 & 9---Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, 2011, Rr. 10(1)(b) & 13(1)---Judicial Officer of a Province appointed against posts in Islamabad Judicial Service on deputation basis---Deputationists---Absorption---Principle---Appellant challenged the absorption of respondent No. 2 in District Judiciary Islamabad; his regularization in service by curtailing the period of his probation and his promotion---Held: Nothing was on record about any decision of Islamabad High Court in terms of Rule 9 of the Judicial Service Rules explaining the extraordinary circumstances in which it was decided by the High Court (i.e. all Judges of the High Court) that Judicial Officers from the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service were to be appointed against posts in Islamabad Judicial Service on deputation basis---Only thing produced was an order of the Peshawar High Court dated 25.01.2012 revealing that 11 Judicial Officers belonging to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Judicial Service were allowed to join their new assignments---There was nothing to establish that it was the Islamabad High Court which, in its collegiate capacity, passed an order to fill posts in Islamabad Judicial Service on deputation by borrowing officers from the High Courts of other provinces in January or February of 2012 when respondent No.2 was appointed on deputation basis and assumed charge of the office of Senior Civil Judge on 01.02.2012---Even if any such order was passed, nothing had been produced where the High Court documented its reasons to fill such posts on a deputation basis while noting that the relevant expertise and ability was not available amongst members of Islamabad Judicial Service, as was required in view of the principles regulating appointments by deputation---It was no one's case that the officers belonging to Khyber PakhtunkhwaJudicial Service underwent a selection process before being appointed by Islamabad High Court on deputation basis---There was therefore nothing to conclude that such appointments on deputation basis were made in accordance with law---Respondent No.2 was appointed against the post of Senior Civil Judge, whereas the post of Senior Civil Judge was reserved to be filled on promotion made on seniority-cum-fitness basis from amongst the civil judges serving in Islamabad District Judicial, in terms of Rr. 10 & 13 of the Judicial Service Rules---As the method of appointment by promotion was prescribed for such post, it could not have been filled through transfer on deputation basis---Therefore, the appointment of respondent No.2 against the post of Senior Civil Judge on deputation basis was in breach of requirements of Rr. 10 & 13 of the Judicial Service Rules and was, thus, illegal---There was no provision in the Islamabad High Court Act or the Judicial Service Rules that vested any authority in the High Court to fill posts in Islamabad Judicial Service on deputation basis and affording such deputationists the option to be absorbed in Islamabad Judicial Service making the two-step process of posting on deputation and subsequent absorption an alternative method of recruitment and appointment within Islamabad Judicial Service---As there was no power vested in the High Court to afford the option of absorption to deputationists who were posted on deputation in January and February of 2012 and were not already serving on deputation at the time of creation of Islamabad High Court and the subsequent enactment of Judicial Service Rules, it was found that notification dated 14.3.2012, pursuant to which 11 Judicial Officers were absorbed in Islamabad Judicial Service, was in breach of Rr. 8, 9, 10 & 13 of the Judicial Service Rules and devoid of legal authority Citation Name: 2026 PLC(CS) 253 SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHABBIR VS REGISTRAR, ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT Subordinate legislation---Delegation of powers---Scope---Any act or subordinate legislation in contravention of the Constitution is ultravires the fundamental law---Similarly, where the power to enact sub-statutory legislation is vested in any authority, the same can only be exercised within the four corners of the statute, in a manner consistent with the provisions of the statute. Citation Name: 2026 PLC(CS) 253 SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHABBIR VS REGISTRAR, ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT Delegation of authority---Scope---Where the Constitution or the law does not itself provide for further delegation of authority, discretionary authority cannot be further delegated and must be exercised by the person or authority on which such power is conferred.

Citation Name: 2026 PLC(CS) 253 SUBORDINATE-JUDICIAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SHABBIR vs REGISTRAR, ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT Rr — 6

Case information

Judgment text as reported