2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Order dated 22-12-2016, of the District Judge Astore, and order dated 08-12-2016, of the Civil Judge Astore, have been challenged through this petition. Through both the impugned orders, the said two lower courts have refused to grant temporary injunction in favour of petitioners.

2. Petitioners admittedly filed a suit for their appointment against the suit posts and with said suit, filed a petition for temporary injunction, seeking injunction against appointment of respondents Nos.7 and 8 against the suit posts. Suit posts are admittedly two vacant posts of EST (BS-14) in Gutumsir Astore.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties at length. Counsel for petitioners argued that petitioners are residents of Gutumsir Astore and have passed the test and interview, therefore, are eligible for appointment against the suit posts. On the other hand, respondents Nos.7 and 8 also have similar claim. Respondents contended that they are in a better position regarding the result of test and interview, therefore, have a prior right to be appointed against the suit posts. I have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the counsel for parties. From tentative perusal of material available on file, it is prima facie evident that parties to the case migrated from Gutumsir Astore or any other village in Astore to Oshkhandas Gilgit or Danyore Gilgit. Respondents Nos.7 and 8 previously appeared in any other test or interview as residents of Danyore Gilgit. It is also not disputed that petitioners have passed the NTS test.

4. It is not disputed that respondents Nos.1 to 6 have evolved a policy of appointing any person, who is resident of a village where the post of EST is lying vacant. It is also not disputed that the suit posts are of EST (BPS-14). This court has repeatedly held that evolving a policy of appointing only local persons against such posts go counter to the normal norms of law of the land. This concept is violative of the rule of fair treatment also. So, courts never encourage this concept. As have been remarked above that there is prima facie evidence showing that parties to the case have migrated from Astore to village Danyore Gilgit or village Oshkhandas Gilgit. Moreover, trial court is yet to determine that who among the petitioners/plaintiffs and respondents/defendants Nos.7 and 8 have secured better positions in the NTS test.

5. So, instead of taking up all the evidence of parties for thorough discussion, I accept this petition, set aside impugned orders but direct the trial court for:- (a) either transpose the parties, i.e., arraying the respondents Nos.7 and 8 as plaintiffs with the petitioners/plaintiffs, or (b) directing the respondents Nos.7 and 8 to file a fresh suit clearly showing their right to be appointed against the suit posts. (c) Till disposal of the suit, respondents Nos.1 to 6 are restrained from making appointment of any of the parties or any other person against the suit posts. Petition accepted accordingly. This file be consigned to record. ZC/185/GB Revision allowed.