The Supreme Court has held that a civil servant who is required to repeat the Common Training Programme (CTP) after failing to meet the prescribed requirements cannot claim seniority from his original batch after successfully completing the programme with a later batch. The court ruled that seniority is governed by applicable laws and rules rather than being an inherent right. A three-member bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, announced the judgment in a service matter titled Federation of Pakistan through Establishment Division versus Kamran Khan.

The petitioner, the Federation of Pakistan, had challenged the judgment dated December 11, 2023, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (Tribunal) in an appeal, whereby the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated October 22, 2015, was declared ultra vires and the appeal of the respondent, Kamran Khan, was allowed. According to the case background, respondent Kamran Khan, a PSP probationer, joined on September 30, 2016. Due to unsatisfactory performance, he was directed to repeat the CTP with the 45th Batch, and his seniority was accordingly fixed with that batch instead of the 44th CTP Batch.

After his departmental appeal was rejected, he approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal declared the O.M. dated October 22, 2015, ultra vires and held that although repetition of the CTP was valid, his seniority should be determined on the basis of his marks in the original 44th CTP Batch, rather than the 45th Batch.

The Supreme Court, after hearing the case at length, allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and dismissed the Service Appeal filed by the respondent before the Tribunal. "Seniority is governed by applicable laws and rules, not as an inherent right," says the nine-page judgment authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar. The court ruled that where a CTP is repeated due to failure and subsequently cleared, seniority is counted from the batch in which the CTP is successfully completed.

The judgment noted that counsel for the respondent vehemently relied on Rule 10, under which the penalty of removal from service is provided if a probationer fails to comply with the provisions of Rules of 1990. He argued that if the performance of the respondent was not above board, then why action was not taken against him under the aforesaid rule. "What we understand is that the respondent was provided a fair opportunity, in his best interest, to complete the course in the next CTP, rather than electing a severe or stern action of removing him from service on invocation of Rule 10 during probationary period, but a further chance was provided, so this grace should not be disgraced.".