Questions of Law Considered:

The Constitution of Islamic Republic Of Pakistan (Art.

199)

Executive Summary of the Findings:

The following brief the defines the art.199 of the Constitution
of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High
Court---Scope---Interference in decisions of State functionaries---Jurisdiction of
the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution was limited to the extent of
ensuring that state functionaries did what they were required by law to do and
refrain from doing what they were prohibited by law to do---Unless an act or
omission of a state functionary fell within the said parameters it was not liable to
be interfered with---Such interference would constitute the High Court
overstepping its jurisdiction and entering the domain of the executive which was
contrary to the concept of trichotomy of powers as per the scheme of the
Constitution.

1) The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Art.199)

a) 2019 SCMR 124 The SECRETARY PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE

COMMISSION, LAHORE and others---Petitioners VERSUS AAMIR HAYAT
and others---Respondents

[ Para - 7 ]

"We also notice that the High Court lost sight of the fact that it is settled law that
Courts cannot interfere in lawful exercise of discretion by the concerned
departments and substitute lawful decisions of the departments, by their own. The
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is limited to
the extent of ensuring that state functionaries do what they are required by law to
do and refrain from doing what they are prohibited by law to do. Unless an act or
omission of a state functionary falls within the above parameters it is not liable to
be interfered with. Such interference would constitute overstepping its jurisdiction
by the High Court and entering the domain of the executive which is contrary to
the concept of trichotomy of powers as per the scheme of the Constitution. The
impugned judgment is silent on the question what was it that the Respondents
were required to do and did not, or what was it that the Respondents were
prohibited by law to do, but did. We also find that the High Court exceeded its
jurisdiction by issuing a direction to the petitioner that an appointment letter be
issued to the Respondent against a post of Sub-Inspector (BS-14) on the basis of
list dated 29.4.2016. By doing so, the High Court arrogated itself to the position of
an appointing authority which is obviously and clearly beyond the scope of its
jurisdiction while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution.
Further, we also note that reliance of the learned High Court on "Province of
Sindh and others v. Ghulam Hassan Bughio" (2014 SCMR 643) is obviously
misplaced and the ratio of the said judgment has clearly been misconstrued. While
it may be correct that under Regulation 59 of the Punjab Public Service
Commission Regulations, 2016, a substitute can be provided from the merit list
during its validity period, if so requested by the department (underlying is for
emphasis), the fact remains that no such request was made and no finding has
been recorded by the High Court that the decision of the department not to send
such request and re-advertise the posts instead was either mala fide or an
unlawful refusal to exercise discretionary powers. There was neither any basis nor
justifiable reason for the High Court to interfere in such decision in exercise of its
constitutional jurisdiction. On account of aforesaid reason also, the order of the
High Court is unsustainable."