Qazi Faez Isa, CJ. The petitioner states that he is serving as a Civil Judge for the last ten years in the Province of Punjab and pursuant to a circular dated 1 September 2023, issued by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which encouraged judicial officers to apply for scholarships to do Master of Laws (LLM) degree from, the United Kingdom, he had availed of the opportunity and secured admission to the LLM programme of studies offered by Durham University and the University of Birmingham of the United Kingdom. However, vide Lahore High Court's letter dated 25 August 2023 it was conveyed to him that the Hon'ble Administration Judge had declined to grant him requisite permission, and had instead advised that the petitioner may obtain the same degree from a local university.
2. Against the decision of the Administration Judge the petitioner filed Service Appeal No.15 of 2023 before the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore ('the Tribunal'). The Tribunal through the impugned judgment dated 25 April 2024 maintained the decision of the Administration Judge, by stating that there are a 'number of reasons' which do not permit the petitioner from going abroad, however, neither the Tribunal nor the Administration Judge had mentioned any. The petitioner further submits that he has been discriminated because a number of his colleagues who were similarly placed were allowed to pursue studies abroad, and that after completing his degree he will return to the country and continue his judicial service. He further states that there would be no financial outlay by the Lahore High Court or by the Government of Punjab and that he will be availing of a scholarship.
3. This petition for leave to appeal is filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ('the Constitution'). The points raised by the petitioner involve substantial questions of law of public importance as it involves the career prospects of judicial officers and also that more educated and trained judicial officers would be better placed to more effectively write orders/judgments and decide cases, and thereby will better serve the public in the dispensation of justice.
Therefore, we had issued notice to the respondent, the Registrar of the Lahore High Court. Notice was also issued to the Advocate-General, Punjab.
4. Pursuant to the said notices Mr. Shahid Latif, Deputy Registrar of the Lahore High Court, and Mr. Muhammad Mumtaz Ali, the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab ('AAG') are in attendance. The learned AAG drew our attention to the Punjab Judicial Service Rules, 1994 ('the Rules'), and submits that if a matter is not attended to by the Rules, then the members of the Judicial Service are to be governed by the rules prescribed by the Government of the Punjab as stipulated in rule 11 of the Rules.
5. The learned AAG submits that since the subject matter of this petition is not attended to in the Rules, the rules applicable to government servants will be attracted. In this regard he has referred to the applicable provisions of different rules governing government servants. Rule 9 of the Revised Leave Rules, 1981 provides for extraordinary leave (leave without pay) and rule 15 thereof attends to ex-Pakistan leave. Reference is also made to the Civil Service Rules (Punjab) ('CSR'), enacted in the year 1941 but amended from time to time, and to rule 8.129 of the CSR which specifically attends to study leave, and is reproduced hereunder: '8.129. Leave may be granted to Government servants on such terms as may be prescribed by general or special orders of the competent authority to enable them to study scientific, technical or similar problems or to undergo special courses of instruction. Such leave is not debited against the leave account.'
The Note under the aforesaid rule stipulates that, 'For general orders issued under this rule see Appendix 20.' Appendix 20 is titled, 'Study Leave Rules Prescribed by the Governor' and comprises of 20 clauses. Clause 7 thereof provides that ordinarily study leave should not be granted to those government servants who have less than five years' service and also not to those who have three years' service left before they are to retire, and a number of clauses state that the study leave should be in connection with the work of the government servant. The Deputy Registrar of the Lahore High Court, Lahore supports the submissions made by the learned AAG.
6. The learned AAG states that though this case does not concern the Government of the Punjab, however, if the petitioner was a government servant he would have been entitled to proceed for study leave as he had been in service for over five years, had sought to get a degree in a field relevant to his work and as his going and studying abroad would not have entailed any expenditure to be incurred by the government. He further states that if request for study leave, despite complying with the applicable provisions, was to be declined, then reasons should be mentioned by the competent authority.
7. We have heard the petitioner, the representative of the respondent, the learned AAG and examined the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and the decision of the Hon'ble Administration Judge. We have also examined the policies, orders, memorandums and circulars issued from time to time by the Lahore High Court.
8. Article 202 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ('the Constitution') stipulates, as under: '202 Subject to the Constitution and law, a High Court may make rules regulating the practice and procedure of the Court or of any court subordinate to it.'
And, Article 203 of the Constitution states that: '203 Each High Court shall supervise and control all courts subordinate to it.'
We are cognizant of the fact that every High Court is independent and empowered to supervise and control all courts subordinate to it. The petitioner is a judicial officer of the Lahore High Court, therefore, he is subject to the supervision and control of the Lahore High Court, however, every judicial officer must be dealt with fairly.
9. The petitioner's representation seeking permission to proceed abroad to do a Master of Law
(LLM) from a foreign university on a scholarship was dismissed, however, he was advised to approach a local university for obtaining the same qualification if he so desired. No reason for declining the permission was given. If, though it was not stated, his services were required then this was not stated; in any case this could not be a reason because he was advised to obtain the same degree from a local university. The impugned judgment upheld the decision of the Hon'ble Administration Judge, by stating that, in this case the authority is not persuaded to exercise discretion for a number of reasons.' However, not a single reason was cited in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal nor in the decision of the Hon'ble Administration Judge and none has been cited by the respondent. Therefore, the said decision and the impugned judgment are not sustainable.
10. The petitioner has been rendering service as a judicial officer for ever ten years. He wanted to improve his legal qualification in his field of work by wanting to do an LLM, and had obtained admission and scholarship. The Lahore High Court, therefore, would not have incurred any expenditure on his travel, lodging and payment of fees. The petitioner is also not close to retirement and is prepared to sign the requisite undertaking/bond. Undoubtedly, better qualified judicial officers would be an asset to the judiciary, and by utilizing their additional training and the knowledge they acquire be better placed to dispense justice. Therefore, we see no reason why this petition should not be converted into an appeal and allowed, which we accordingly do so by setting aside the impugned judgment and the decision of the Hon'ble Administration Judge. At this juncture the petitioner states that he may no longer be able to avail of his admission as the academic year will be commencing soon, therefore, he requests that the benefit of this judgment may continue for the coming year(s). The request of the petition in the circumstances of the case is reasonable. Accordingly, if the petitioner can no longer avail of the admission and scholarship in the coming academic year he will be entitled to do so in the next, or any future year.
11. Though the High Court is constitutionally competent to enact rules and supervise and control all courts subordinate to it, and thus its judicial officers, we note that there is no clear policy with regard to the matter of study leave of judicial officers. It is also noted that at times the Administration Committee of the Lahore High Court determined the subject matter of study leave and at other times the Hon'ble Chief Justice or the nominated Administration Judge. Therefore, a clear, equitable and transparent policy with regard to study leave of judicial officers may be formulated by the High Court, which should then he applied uniformly, and if a judicial officer secures admission in a reputable foreign university on scholarship basis in the field of law or related discipline and fulfills the stipulated criteria, including having saved for the prescribed minimum number of years, is not close to retirement, there is no financial outlay by the High Court and is not facing disciplinary proceedings then permission should not be withheld, unless there is some good reason which is communicated to him/her.
12. The Registrar of the Lahore High Court to place this matter for the consideration of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Lahore High Court and/or the Administration Committee as applicable for the formulation of a policy with regard to the study leaves of judicial officers.