2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Petitioners have challenged order dated 10/03/2017 of the Additional District Judge Gilgit, whereby, the said First Appellate Court has upheld order dated 24/01/2017 of the learned Civil Judge Gilgit.

2. Respondents admittedly advertised some posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors, hereunder referred as ASI, inviting applications for direct appointment against said posts. Petitioners/plaintiffs felt aggrieved from said advertisement and filed the suit with the plea that petitioners/ plaintiffs are regular employees in the department of respondents and suit posts advertised by the respondents are required to be filled in through promotion instead of direct appointment. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit (Civil Suit No.18/2017) and also filed a petition under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. with the said suit, whereby, sought grant of temporary injunction till disposal of the suit. Learned trial court dismissed the said application for temporary injunction through his order dated 24/01/2017 and feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioners/plaintiffs filed CFA No.16/2017 in the Court of Additional District Judge Gilgit, who, through the impugned order, upheld order of the trial court.

3. Through order dated 06/04/2017, I issued pre-admission notices to the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General appeared in compliance with the said notice. I have already heard learned counsel for petitioner on 06/04/2017, on preliminaries. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General and have gone through the material available on file today.

4. Order dated 24/01/2017 of the learned trial Court is very important as learned trial court has given details of figures showing appointment of regular employees of respondents against posts of ASI of Police and the relevant law from Police Rules, governing appointment against subject posts. For ready reference, I reproduce its operative parts hereunder:- " .

5. From the perusal of the contents of the plaint, it is reveal that the plaintiffs/ petitioners have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the respondents Nos.3, 4 have already filled up the direct quota before this on various date and the present posts fall within the quota of departmental promotion. From the Perusal of official documents it is crystal clear that 351 posts of ASI have been appointed so for since 2001 in which 289 posts of ASI have been appointed through departmental promotion while 62 posts of ASI have been appointed through direct recruitment, hence as per 12:3 of police rule 26 post of ASI still rest with the quota of direct recruitment but only 22 posts of ASI have been advertised as such the petitioner has no prima facie arguable case as they have already availed their due quota in the light of police rule and the other two ingredients which are necessary to grant a temporary injunction is also lacking in the instant case, therefore, I am of the considered view that the petition under Order XXXIX, rules 1, 2, C.P.C. is devoided by merit, hence dismissed."

6. Announced: 24.01.2017 Sd/- Vacation Civil Judge 1st Class Gilgit" Learned first appellate court has maintained the above order of learned trial court through impugned order. I have specifically confronted the learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs about the figures and minute details of the impugned order and received no answers. This shows that the figures and details as well as the relevant law governing appointments of ASI in the department of respondents reflected in the above order of trial court are correct. From plain perusal of above referred order of trial court, it is evident that since 2001, respondents have appointed 351 persons against the posts of ASI, out of which 289 persons were appointed through departmental promotion while only 62 posts have been filled in through direct recruitment. The law governing appointment against suit posts through direct recruitment provides that respondents were bound to appoint at least 88 persons through direct recruitment. So, the difference is still of 26 persons required to be appointed through direct recruitment. So, at this stage of the case, I accept the figures and other discussions of the learned trial court reflected in the above part of impugned order of trial court. Petitioners/plaintiffs have very badly failed to establish a prima-facie case in favour of grant of temporary injunction and the two courts below have correctly given concurrent findings on the question that there exists or not a prima-facie case in favour of grant or refusal of temporary injunction. In the light of above referred part of order of trial court, I hold that in the case in hand there is a best kind of prima-facie case in favour of respondents. So, impugned orders are neither result of any kind of misreading of available evidence nor the same suffers from any material irregularity.

5. I, therefore, hold that this petition merits dismissal and is dismissed instead of admitting the same for regular hearing. Admission of this petition for regular hearing is refused. I deem it appropriate and just to direct respondents not to pass any order of promotion of any of the petitioners/plaintiffs or any other person unless and until the quota provided for direct appointment against suit posts or against posts about to fall vacant in future, are filled in through direct recruitment. I feel that only then respondents displayed full adherence to the rules governing direct appointment against suit posts. Respondents are ate liberty to appoint persons through direct recruitment differently from that of Police Rules of 1934 if similar Rules passed later to 1934, if any provide differently. This file be consigned to record. ZC/184/GB Petition dismissed.