Rozi Zahid v. Federation of Pakistan & others

Background

The petitioner, a doctor, joined the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) on 24.11.2000. She was promoted to Deputy Chief Medical Officer-1 (Administration) (BPS-19) with effect from 14.1.2022 and completed her one-year probation on 13.1.2023. By a letter dated 23.1.2023, the Chairman KPT re-designated the post of Deputy CMO (Clinical) as Senior Medical Officer (Clinical), transferred her to that newly re-designated post, and posted a BPS-18 officer as Acting Deputy CMO (Admin). A second letter, dated 13.6.2023, confirmed her retrospectively from 14.1.2023 on the Senior Medical Officer post, which itself had come into existence only on 23.1.2023.

The Chairman acted under powers delegated by the KPT Board through Board Resolution No. 334 of 8.5.2003.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 allows the Board to delegate powers only to committees of trustees, not to an individual, and that the confirmation was contrary to the 2011 KPT Officers Regulations. For KPT it was argued that the Chairman has administrative control over officers, that Resolution 334 validly delegated the power to re-designate and transfer posts up to BPS-19, supported by Regulations 6 and 9 of the 2011 Regulations, and that both posts carried the same grade, pay and status. KPT also argued that Regulation 3 of the 2011 Regulations protected the earlier resolution.

The Court's reasoning

The Court held that section 17(3) of the Act permits the Board to delegate its powers only to committees made up of trustees, not to any individual officer, including the Chairman. Under section 24(ii), orders and regulations for BPS-19 officers are for the Board itself. Regulation 9, being procedural subordinate legislation, could not enlarge those statutory limits. Regulation 3 protects only earlier decisions about an officer's conditions of service, and a delegation of the Board's powers is not such a decision. In any event, the impugned letters were issued long after the 2011 Regulations came into force.

Outcome

The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. The Court declared the delegation under Resolution No. 334 illegal and ultra vires sections 17(3) and 24(ii) of the Act, and declared the two impugned letters without lawful authority and void. KPT was directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for confirmation as Deputy CMO (Administration) under the Act and the applicable rules. The findings were confined to the petitioner and the private respondent.

Why it matters

MSA Law Chamber acted for KPT, and the decision went against it. The legal lesson is significant for statutory bodies. A power that a statute gives to a Board must be exercised as the statute allows. Delegating it to an individual officer without statutory authority can make the resulting postings and transfers void, even where pay and grade are unchanged.