“Writ Jurisdiction in Service Matters in Pakistan: Exceptions to Article 212”
FAQ Titles
- “Writ Jurisdiction in Service Matters in Pakistan: Exceptions to Article 212 Explained”
- “Article 212 vs. Article 199: When You Can File a Writ Petition in Service Cases”
- “Maintainability of Writ Petitions in Service Matters Under Pakistani Law”
- “Writ Petitions in Service Matters: Circumstances Where Article 212 Does Not Apply”
- “Can Civil Servants File Writ Petitions in Pakistan? Exceptions to Article 212”
- “Writ Petitions and Service Tribunals in Pakistan: Complete Guide with Case Law”
- “Filing a Writ in Service Matters: Legal Exceptions to Article 212 in Pakistan”
1. Introduction
Ordinarily, disputes over terms and conditions of public service are exclusively handled by administrative bodies and service tribunals in Pakistan. Yet, under specific circumstances, High Courts retain the power to entertain writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution, notwithstanding the bar in Article 212(2). Through decades of judicial interpretation, courts have balanced the exclusive forum of service tribunals with the constitutional imperative of judicial review.
This article will examine:
- The general prohibition on writs in service matters.
- Judicially recognized exceptions permitting writs.
- Key judgments that have shaped this area.
- Concrete scenarios where High Courts can intervene.
- Recommendations and concluding observations.
2. Constitutional and Statutory Framework
2.1 Article 199 — High Court Writ Powers
High Courts may issue orders or directions where:
- A public function is performed by or under the authority of the Federation, a Province, or a local body.
- Fundamental rights have been infringed.
- There is want of jurisdiction, mala fide conduct, or contravention of law.
2.2 Article 212 — Bar Where Tribunal Exists
Article 212(2) states that once legislation establishes an Administrative Court or Tribunal to adjudicate service-related disputes, “no other court” may grant relief in those matters. This provision seeks to channel all service disputes to specialized fora.
2.3 Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Under this Act, Service Tribunals possess exclusive authority to hear cases about terms and conditions of service for civil servants.
3. The General Rule: Exclusive Tribunal Jurisdiction
Whenever a dispute concerns a civil servant’s promotion, seniority, disciplinary action, or retirement, the Service Tribunal is the proper venue. High Courts traditionally refuse to intervene, respecting Article 212’s bar. Landmark decisions confirm that once a constitutionally mandated tribunal is in place, ordinary courts must abstain.
4. Carved-Out Exceptions to Article 212(2)
Despite the overarching prohibition, the judiciary has identified several exceptions where High Courts may still entertain writ petitions in service contexts:
4.1 When the Applicant Is Not a “Civil Servant”
If the person does not qualify as a “civil servant” under Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, the Service Tribunal lacks competence—writ jurisdiction remains open.
- Examples: Contract staff; daily wagers; employees of autonomous or statutory bodies not covered by the Act.
4.2 Disputes over Pre-Service Recruitment or Appointment
A candidate who has not formally joined service can seek High Court relief, since they fall outside a tribunal’s remit.
- Examples: Denial of appointment despite being on the merit list; refusal to issue an appointment letter; arbitrary cancellation of selection.
4.3 Violation of Fundamental Rights
Where a service-related action infringes fundamental rights—such as equality (Article 25), right to due process (Article 10A), or protection of life and liberty (Article 9)—High Courts can intervene.
- Examples: Discriminatory denial of promotion; dismissal without a fair inquiry.
4.4 Mala Fide, Corruption, or Ultra Vires Action
If an authority acts without lawful power, in excess of jurisdiction, or with malice, the bar of Article 212 does not apply.
- Examples: Promotions awarded to favored individuals; politically motivated transfers.
4.5 Employees of Statutory Bodies with No Tribunal
In absence of a dedicated tribunal, employees of statutory corporations may invoke writ jurisdiction.
- Examples: University faculty; staff of PIA, WAPDA, OGDCL—if their rules carry statutory weight.
4.6 Breaches of Rules Having Statutory Force
Violation of regulations enacted under statutory authority can be challenged by writ, even in service settings.
- Examples: Ignoring promotion criteria; altering selection procedures to exclude candidates.
4.7 Absence of an Effective or Alternate Remedy
Where the tribunal is inaccessible, lacks jurisdiction, or an alternate forum is impotent or unduly delayed, High Courts may assume jurisdiction.
- Examples: Tribunal dysfunction or refusal; urgent need for injunction.
5. Illustrative Scenarios
| Situation | Writ Maintainable? | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| FPSC recommends a candidate, but appointment not issued | ✔️ | Applicant not yet a civil servant |
| Civil servant dismissed without a fair hearing | ✔️ | Fundamental rights breach (Article 10A) |
| Contract employee terminated without cause | ✔️ | Outside Civil Servants Act jurisdiction |
| Regular civil servant denied promotion | ❌ | Within tribunal’s exclusive domain |
| Dismissal for political victimization | ✔️ | Mala fide exercise of power |
| OGDCL staff removed without notice | ✔️ | Not a civil servant; tribunal lacks jurisdiction |
| Dispute over seniority or pension | ❌ | Falls squarely under Service Tribunal |
| Merit list bypassed in recruitment | ✔️ | Unlawful/inequitable action; fundamental rights infringement |
| Incompetent inquiry officer appointed | ✔️ | Action without lawful authority |
| University lecturer removed without due process | ✔️ | Statutory body; violation of university service rules |
6. Recommendations & Conclusion
While Article 212 reserves most service disputes for specialized tribunals, High Courts remain a vital check where:
- The applicant is not technically a civil servant.
- The issue concerns recruitment irregularities.
- Fundamental rights are at stake.
- Actions are mala fide, corrupt, or beyond jurisdiction.
- No tribunal exists, or alternate remedies are ineffective.
These exceptions reinforce judicial oversight, uphold fairness, and guard against executive excess. Although Service Tribunals play a central role, Article 199’s writ jurisdiction remains an essential instrument to protect rights and maintain the rule of law.
Authored by:
Asadullah Hashmi, LLM-ITL (Medalist)
LEX & JURIS Barristers & Legal Consultants
Flat no.4, Block D-7, FGEHA Apartments, Opposite Federal Judicial Complex, Sector G-11/4 Islamabad
Contacts: 0332-7516974 / 0332-0074848
Website: LexandJuris.com
