ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said the government, being the largest public employer, must conduct itself as a model, since good governance requires clarity not only at the policy stage but also in making rules and their subsequent implementation.

The observation was made while restoring the promotion of Muhammad Shafiq, a former elementary school teacher (physical education) (EST-PE), and setting aside the withdrawal of his promotion to assistant education officer (physical education) (AEO-PE).

“Where rules do not prescribe coherent promotional tracks or options, the resulting uncertainty leads to failure in governance,” said Justice Ayesha Malik in a six-page judgement she authored.

Justice Malik headed a two-judge bench that consisted of Justice Shahid Waheed.

She observed that the consequences of opaque rules were borne not only by the institution that created the ambiguity, but by the employee who then must spend years seeking an entitlement that should otherwise have been provided for in the rules of the service structure.

The petitioner was aggrieved by the March 12, 2025, Punjab Service Tribunal, which rejected his prayer for setting aside the withdrawal of his promotion order of May 24, 2023.

The petitioner joined the education department on Nov 22, 1995, as EST-PE until his 2020 promotion orders to become an assistant education officer (physical education) (AEO-PE, BS-16) on Oct 31, 2020.

However, this order was withdrawn on May 24, 2023, which then became the bone of contention between the petitioner and the education department.

The judgement emphasised that the service structure must provide a clear, predictable career path so that the employee can understand where he or she enters the service, how progression takes place and what conditions govern their advancement.

“Questions with reference to pay, seniority, promotion and retirement are not administrative inconveniences, they are matters that determine the security, progression and dignity of a public servant throughout their working life,” the judgement said.

Citing the March 14, 2014, Punjab School Education Department (School Education) Service Rules, 2014, which prescribed the method for promotion to SST or AEO (PE) from EST (PE) BS-14, the judgement noted that a note at the end of the rules created a dispute.

The note states that the post of AEOs shall be filled from amongst SSTs through transfer.

The judgement explained that reliance on the note to deny the promotion was without basis or justification, adding that the department’s understanding of the rules was flawed, as the note could not be read as a bar to the promotion criteria clearly provided for in the 2014 rules.

The judgement said that structural gaps were often the consequence of policies developed without adequate data, institutional consultation or an understanding of how the service actually functioned on the ground.

They were then aggravated at the implementation stage by an administrative approach that first asked why a benefit should not be given, rather than whether it was due and how the governing framework could be fairly made to work.

Administrative convenience cannot be a substitute for the law, nor can ambiguity become a reason to deny someone legitimate progression.

“Where repeated difficulties expose a gap in the service structure, the appropriate response is not to withdraw the benefit given to the litigant, but rather to identify anomalies, consult those affected and correct the rules,” the judgement affirmed.

Good administration is not measured by how effectively it resists a claim, but by how fairly, consistently and efficiently it determines what is due and then delivers it.

There is a wider rule-of-law consequence to such administrative uncertainty and lethargy.

The law cannot effectively regulate the conduct of those governed by it, including public servants, if they cannot easily ascertain what is required, the judgement stated.

Legal certainty demands more than the existence of rules. It requires that rules are coherent, predictable and capable of being applied.

When a service structure is unclear, its deficiencies are addressed through addendum orders, withdrawals and repeated representations, which then create contradictions and anomalies that are not corrected.

It encourages employees to seek exceptions, interventions and litigation simply to establish something that should have been obvious under the rules.

This is the absolute opposite of good administration and good governance. The burden of resolving deficiencies lies with the state alone and, in that process, policymaking and rule-making are important and decisive steps at which all relevant factors should be considered, the judgement emphasised.

Clarity is not merely good drafting, it is an element of legality itself, an essential condition for consistent, fair and accountable governance, the judgement explained.