1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑‑‑This is an appeal against the order of Commissioner Settlement, dated 27‑5‑1993 whereby appeal filed by present appellant . Muhammad Farooq son of Said Hussain against the order of Settlement Officer, District Poonch, dated 31‑10‑1990 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts ark that appellant who was an approved candidate Girdawar was working as Patwari in Settlement Organization. His brother submitted an application to the then Prime Minister who was pleased to direct on 16‑8‑1990: The appellant, in pursuance of the directions of the Prime Minister was appointed as Girdawar against a post of direct quota in Scale B‑9 vide order, dated 12‑9‑1990. The father of respondent No.4, who was retired Patwari submitted an application to the Prime Minister for promotion of his son as Girdawar. The Prime Minister was pleased to withdraw his previous order concerning appointment of appellant as Girdawar and directed that respondent No.4 be promoted as Girdawar. In view of the directions of the Prime Minister the order of appointment of appellant as Girdawar was cancelled and respondent No.4 was promoted as Girdawar.

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was appointed against the post reserved for initial recruitment and the order having been passed and appellant assumed the charge of the post could not be reverted subsequently by the Settlement Officer. It is an admitted position that appellant was working as Patwari and he was appointed Girdawar on the directions of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister cancelled his previous orders and directed that ‑ respondent No.4 Muhammad Farooq be promoted as Girdawar. The appointment of appellant was made on 12‑9‑1990 and that appointment was cancelled by the Prime Minister by his order dated 28‑10‑1990. The point to be addressed in this appeal is whether the appointment of appellant was made in accordance with the rules concerning the service known as Azad Jammu and Kashmir Kanungo service. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Kanungo Service Rules 1979 were made by the Government for regulating recruitment to the service. Rule 5 of the said Rules prescribes the method of recruitment to the service which is:‑‑ "(a) by initial recruitment or (b) by promotion." The Appointing Authority under Rule 4 is Collector Incharge of the District concerned. The appointment under Rule 6 is to be made on the basis of written examination. The matters which are not covered under these Rules, the service shall be governed by such Rules as‑ has been prescribed by the Government. Under Rule 17 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 initial appointments to all posts in grade 1 to 15 are made by the appropriate Committee or the Board on the basis of examination or test to be held by that Board or Committee. It is clear from the provisions of the said Rules relating to the appointment by initial recruitment that the appointment to the service has to be made by Appointing Authority on the recommendations of the appropriate, Selection Board or Committee. The appointment of appellant was made in clear violation of the rules on the subject and if the appointment was subsequently cancelled the appellant has no right to approach a Court of law where the matters are to be judged purely in accordance with the provisions of rules on the subject. It may again be stated that the order passed on 12‑9‑1990 was cancelled on 31‑10‑1990. A person appointed by initial recruitment has to remain on probation for the period of two years under Rule 8 of the Rules relating to the service. The competent authority cancelled the appointment within a period of two months whereas the appointee has to remain on probation for two years. The impugned order could be passed by the competent authority before the expiry of probationary period.

5. The other part of the order, dated 31‑10‑1990 of Settlement Officer, Poonch relates to the promotion of respondent Muhammad Farooq as Girdawar in his own pay and scale subject to the recommendations of Selection Committee. The post against which appointment of respondent was made became vacant on account of the promotion of Muhammad Shafique Rathore, Girdawar in Sub‑Division, Havalee District Bagh. Appellant although resident of the area of Tehsil Havalee was working as Patwari in Tehsil Pallandri of Distract Poonch. The vacancy against which the appointment of respondent was made occurred in the District of Bagh. It is provided under sub‑rule (2) of Rule 5 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Kanungo Service Rules, 1979 that the promotions from amongst the Patwaris of the Department shall be made from the vacancies occurring in the District in which the concerned Patwari is serving. The appellant at the time of passing of the said order was serving as Patwari in the District of Poonch and at the time of filing this appeal before the Tribunal he was placed on the strength of the Patwaris of District Muzaffarabad. Being a Patwari of the other Districts he could not claim promotion from a post of Patwari to the post of Girdawar under the rules. He is, therefore, not an aggrieved person and is not competent to file the present appeal. Impugned order shows that the respondent was appointed permanent Patwari in the Revenue Department on 16‑7‑1980 whereas appellant was appointed as Patwari in Settlement Organization on 1‑12‑1983. This Organization is temporary and appellant who is serving in temporary Organization cannot compete with respondent who is permanent employee in the Revenue Department.

6. We are of the opinion that appellant has no case for interference by this Tribunal. The result is that this appeal fails and we dismiss the same with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./255/Sr.A. Appeal dismissed.