‘Case must be decided according to what is pleaded and proved’: SC
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court has ruled that case must be decided according to what is pleaded and proved and should avoid and ignore the issues if raised beyond the parameters set by the original pleadings.
The judgment, authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, stated: “If a Court or Tribunal grounded its judgment on extraneous issues, the resulting order is often considered a nullity or without lawful authority. No doubt the Court sometimes molds a relief to provide substantial and complete justice, but even it does not permit it to outweigh or overshadow the law and gather up the issues alien to the pleadings from tip to toe.”
The Court and Tribunal act as neutral arbiters rather than investigators or policy makers or initiating or conducting fishing and roving inquiries. Crossing the bounds of jurisdiction renders the order and decision coram non judice, it added.
A two-member bench comprising Justice Mazhar and Justice Musarat Hilali set aside the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Appellate Tribunal judgment in Medical Teaching Institutions appeals.
The judgment also said that judicial power can only be exercised within the limits of jurisdiction conferred by law, as accentuated under Article 175 (2) of the Constitution 1973 as an indispensable and elementary tenet that no court shall have any jurisdiction unless it is conferred by the Constitution or under any law.
The Court noted that no doubt, under Section 16-A of the MTI Act, the Tribunal has been conferred with powers to hear appeals in the matters provided under sub-section (7) of section 5 and sub-section (8) of Section 16 and other matters related to or arising from the provisions of this Act. It; however, said that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is delineated to deal with and decide the appeal if preferred by any member of the Board against his removal prior to completion of his term of three years or the employees of a Medical Teaching Institution against any penalty, termination of their employment or any order in connection with the terms and conditions of their service.
The directions of demotion or reversal of a large number of promoted employees since 2015 not only created serious repercussions and administrative catastrophes, but all this was also done without providing any right of audience to numerous reverted employees, which gravely violated the right to fair trial and due process.
The short and snappy facts of the case are that the Policy Board Medical Teaching Institutes in January 2023 approved certain amendments to Appendix-8 of the Model MTI Regulations and also incorporated a clause for “Accelerated Promotion for Outstanding Merit” which allowed promotion after a minimum period of 4 years of service, subject to achieving a score of 70 percent or more.
The policy was meant to encourage the faculty members to be equipped with the latest knowledge and research. The recommendations were circulated vide Office Order dated 22.02.2023 for adoption of the amended policy by the respective Boards of Governors (BoG). As a consequence of the amended policy, Dr Yasir Rehman Khattak and Dr Nasreen Kishwar applied for promotion under clause (c) of amended Appendix-8 for accelerated promotion to the posts of Associate Professor.
The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) evaluated their case and found them fit under the accelerated promotion criteria. When the matter was forwarded to the Institutional Promotion Committee (IPC) for further evaluation, they declared the aforesaid persons ineligible due to a lack of five years’ experience as a minimum prerequisite under the PM&DC Regulations.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, Dr Yasir and Dr Kishwar approached the Tribunal, which not only dismissed their appeals, but issued some directions beyond the scope of pleadings. Therefore, not only the original appellants but the Policy Board and the BOG of the Lady Reading Hospital challenged the impugned judgment before the apex court.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026