P L D 2013 Lahore 386 (PLP)

SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, J.

This is an appeal under Rule 24' of the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules' ("Rules") against order dated 10-7-2009 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court (also referred to as the "Competent Authority" or "HCJ) under Rule 7 of the Rules and notified on the same day whereby nine, (9) officers of this Court were promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar (BS-19) from amongst the Private Secretaries, Readers and Assistant Registrars of this Court.

2. The main grievance of the appellant, who is a Reader of this Court, is that the impugned order of promotion passed by the Competent Authority does not furnish any reasons for promoting respondents Nos.2 to 4 (also Readers of this Court) and for superseding the appellant. He submits that his service record is at par with the respondent officers besides being senior to them (in the seniority list of the Readers) still he has not been promoted. He submitted that no "objective criteria" has been evolved for selection to the post of Deputy Registrar, therefore, the impugned order amounts to discrimination.

3. Learned counsel representing the Registrar of this Court, Hafiz Muhammad Sajjad,. Assistant Registrar (Gazette-II) Lahore High Court and respondents Nos.2 to 4 appearing in person collectively made their submissions. They raised a preliminary objection at the outset that the instant appeal against order of promotion passed by the Competent Authority under Rule 7 of the Rules is not maintainable and placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12-12-2001 passed in Service Appeal No.10 of 1999 which holds that appeal under Rule 24 is provided only against an order of seniority under Rule 20(c).

4. On merits, they submitted that respondents Nos.2 to 4 were preferred over the appellant because of their educational qualification. They referred to the decision of the Competent Authority dated 30-9-2008 whereby Masters or an LLB degree was set as qualification for the candidates to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar (BS-19). They further submitted that, it is assumed, that the competent Authority, being the Chief Justice of this Court, must have carefully examined the service record and other antecedents of the candidates hence there is no requirement for the impugned order to carry reasons. It was also contended that under Rule 26 of the Rules, the Hon'ble Chief Justice has unlimited powers to appoint and promote any officer of this Court,, therefore, the grievance of the appellant Is unfounded.

5. Arguments heard. Rules and the original record maintained by the Assistant Registrar (Gazette-II) have been perused. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

6. High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions o' Service) Rules have been promulgated in exercise of powers conferred by Paragraph 6 of Part-II of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1956 read with Article 227(5) of the said Constitution.' RULE 24.

7. Under Ruler 24 an appeal is available against an order passed under Rules 20 and 23 of the said Rules before the Authorities indicated in Schedule-II of the said Rules (Schedule-II has been reproduced at the 'end of this judgment for ready reference). Rules 7 and 20 provide as under: Rule 7. "The Posts of, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar and Private Secretary to the Chief Justice shall be filled by selection by the Chief Justice and that of the Personal Assistant to the Registrar by the Registrar ordinarily from the High Court establishment, provided that where the appointment is made from outside, the provisions of rule 6(i) shall apply." Rule 20. "Subject to the provisions of rule 7, all matters relating to appointment, promotion and seniority shall be decided by the Registrar, if specially empowered;' or in the absence of such powers by the Administrative Judge; provided that an appeal shall lie against; (a) An order of substantive appointment, by promotion or otherwise to a permanent post or pensionable post the maximum pay of which is Rs.60 or more per mensem; (b) An order of temporary appointment which is to last for more than three months in respect of a post, the maximum pay of which is Rs.60 or more per mensem, and (c) An order fixing the seniority of any member of the establishment, Such appeal shall lie to the authorities indicated in Schedule-II attached to these rules." (emphasis supplied)

8. Perusal of the above provisions, inter alia, show that appointment or promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar and Private Secretary shall be through SELECTION by the Ron'ble Chief Justice. It further shows that appeal will lie against an order of appointment, promotion or seniority before the appellate A authorities mentioned in Schedule II. In case the order is passed by the HCJ the appellate authority is a bench of two judges of this Court. In other matters the appeal lies before the Administrative Judge or the Chief A Justice. The unreported judgment cited by the learned counsel for the Registrar passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 12-12-2001 passed in Service Appeal No.10 .of 1999 proceeds on the assumption that appeal is available only against an order of seniority under Rule 20(c) and fails to consider that appeal is also available against orders of appointment, promotion and temporary appointment as provided under Rules 20(a) and (b). It appears that the Bench was not properly assisted and Rules 20(a) and (b) were not brought to their notice.

9. For the above reasons we are of the view that all the orders envisaged in sub-rules (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 20 are appealable before the appropriate appellate authority as provided in Schedule-II read with Rule 245 of the Rules. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents, therefore has no force and is hereby overruled. ON MERITS

10. Assistant Registrar (Gazette-II) of this Court submitted that in the year 1998 the matter regarding promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar was placed before the then Hon'ble Chief Justice (Mr. Justice Rashid Aziz Khan) who passed the following order:

"Promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar shall be made in rotation from amongst the three feeding Cadres, namely, the Private Secretaries, Readers and Superintendents (now Assistant Registrars)."

11. Thereafter, the then Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 30-9-2008 set qualifications for the officers to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar in the following manner:

. "Master degree or equivalent in any subject from a recognized university or institution or LL.B." Keeping in view the above decisions,. the Private Secretaries, Readers . and Assistant Registrars of this Court have been promoted to nine vacant posts of Deputy Registrar through impugned order on rotational basis. Respondents emphasized that only officers holding Masters or LL$ degree could be considered for the post of Deputy Registrar; hence the appellant was rightly superseded.

12. The impugned order dated 10-7-2009 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice is as follows: Hon'ble Chief Justice

18. Taking into consideration the educational qualification and perusing the service record of the officers, following promotions are made to the posts of Deputy Registrars from the dates mentioned against each officer:-- 1 Pervaiz Khalid, Private Secretary With immediate effect to make up the previous deficiency. 2 Muhammad Sarwar, Private Secretary With immediate effect 3 Abdul Hafeez, Reader With immediate effect 4 Abid Hussain Bokhari, Assistant Registrar With immediate effect 5 Muhammad Asghar, Private Secretary With immediate effect 6 Iftikhar Ahmed Samdani, Reader With immediate effect 7 Sheikh. Muhammad Nadeem, Assistant Registrar With immediate effect 8 Arshad Mahmood Baig, Private Secretary With immediate effect 9 Riaz Hussain Shahid, Reader w.e.f. 1-8-2009. (emphasis supplied) (KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF) CHIEF JUSTICE 10-7-2009 LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE NOTIFICATION No.10218/Gaz. 1 .V. Z.2(a) Dated Lahore the 10th July, 2009 The Hon'ble Chief Justice has been pleased to select and promote the following officers of this Court, as Deputy Registrar Lahore High Court, Lahore, in the public interest, with immediate effect:

1. Mr. Pervaiz Khalil. Private

2. Mr. Muhammad Sarwar, Private Secretary

3. Mr. Abdul Hafeez, Reader

4. Mr Abid Hussain Bokhari, Assistant Registrar

5. Mr. Muhammad Asghar, Private Secretary

6. Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Samdani, Reader

7. Sheikh Muhammad Nadeem, Assistant Registrar.

8. Mr. Arshad Mahmood Baig, Private Secretary.

9. Mr. Riaz Hussain Shahid, Reader; (w.e.f. 1-8-2009). (emphasis supplied) (ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR) DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (ESTT.) FOR REGISTRAR

13. It needs to be seen whether the above orders have been passed after considering the educational qualification and service record of the officers. Summary of the service record of 14 Readers was placed before the Competent Authority for three posts of Deputy Registrar on rotational basis from amongst the Readers. Notification' dated 6-11-1997 showing, inter se, seniority of the appellant and respondents 2 to 4 has been placed on the record as Mark "A" and is undisputed. The following extract shows the service record put up before the Competent Authority' pertaining to the appellant and the Readers who were selected i.e. respondents 2 to

4. Further perusal of the record shows that the service record of the other Readers was also in the same format: Tamar Ahmed Khan Appellant B.A. Abdul Hafeez Respondent No.2 B.A., LL.B. Iftikhar Ahmad Samdani Respondent No.3 B.A., LL.B. Riaz Hussain Shahid Respondent No.4 B.A. He joined as junior clerk on 26-7-1980 He was appointed as Assistant during the year 1986. He was appointed as Reader in the year 1997 " He is being considered for promotion of Deputy Registrar for first time. Presently, no departmental inquiry/proceedings are pending against him. He joined in this Court as Stenographer in the year 1994. He was appointed as Reader on 6.11-1997. He is being considered for promotion of Deputy Registrar for first time. Presently, no departmental inquiry/proceedings are pending against him. He started his career as junior clerk in 1979 and promoted as Senior Clerk in the year 1982. He was recruited as Reader in 1997. He is being considered for promotion of Deputy Registrar for first time. Presently, no departmental inquiry/proceedings are pending against him. He started his career as junior clerk(w.e.f 28-10-1979). He was selected as Junior Translator and then promoted as Senior Translator in 1997. He was recruited as Reader in 1997. He is being considered for promotion of Deputy Registrar for first time. Presently, no departmental inquiry/proceedings are pending against him. From the above information it is noticed that the selection was based on the following factors:

(i) Educational qualifications; (ii) A brief service record of the officers, establishing their inter se seniority; (iii) That the officers were being considered for the post for the first time; (iv) That no departmental proceedings were pending against the said officers.

14. The above record establishes that respondent No.4 and the appellant have the same educational qualification i.e., B.A. Additionally, the appellant is senior to respondents No.2 to

4. The impugned order reproduced above, fails to furnish reasons why the appellant (who was senior to respondent No.4) stood superseded in the above facts and circumstances of the case when the record and educational qualification of the appellant and respondent No.4 were at par. It is also not clear why respondent No 4 was selected for promotion when four other Readers`' in the pool (two of them senior to respondent No.4)holding higher educational qualification i.e., an LLB degree were ignored. RULE 7:

15. Under Rule 7 of the Rules, the post of Deputy Registrar is to be filled by Selection by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It is settled legal position that selection post is to be filled purely on merit" by carefully evaluating the suitability of the officer for the post, while non-selection post is to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. In a selection post, suitability of the officer is not to be simply gauged on the basis of seniority or eligibility but requires a deeper subjective assessment of the meritoriousness of a candidate. To evaluate MERIT, the ability and t achievement demonstrated by the officer in the post held by him plays a pivotal role. The Competent Authority, therefore has to devise a strategic formulae or intelligent objective criteria or smart arameters12 that are geared towards evaluating the suitability of the candidate and help select the best person for the job as if separating the wheat from the chaff .In essence the discretion at work behind the selection process must be structured, rational, logical and objective. In Imran Hussain's case this Court held that ".... One of the ways to arrive at such a structured exercise of discretion is to fashion it on a well-thought out carefully deliberated objective standard. This helps test various faculties of the interviewee especially- those, which the institution concerned requires. The standard can, therefore, cover experience, alertness, initiative, general aptitude, behaviour, knowledge, dependability, etc which forms a uniform yardstick, gauge, scale or criteria for the exercise of discretion. Discretion without a uniform yardstick or a formula is a loose jumble of haphazard human subjectivity, which is inescapably susceptible to error and indubitably arbitrary, ex facie discriminatory, highly irrational and painfully illogical. The administrative compulsion and wisdom to structure discretion (in this case by providing a well thought out objective criteria/test or a score card) is to remove human subjectivity from exercise of discretion. in the present case, this was not done. Good governance and institutional building requires that the requirements, demands and needs of the institution are tailored into the objective criteria/ test so .that the best suited human resource is selected for the post. The proposed criteria can sub-divide total marks into areas like; experience, skill, aptitude; educational back l round, intellect, extra-curricular; personality, ethics, etc. so the interviewers have a prefixed format to apply, their mind on and disallow unchecked subjectivity from clogging them the minds." (emphasis supplied)

16. The need to have intelligent objective criteria or smart parameters, therefore, cannot be over emphasized. Such criteria or parameters are tools for the selecting authority to logically fashion its discretion. Reliance is placed on Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others (2010 SCMR 1301), Corruption in Raj] Arrangements in 2010 (PLD 2011 SC 963), Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others (PLD 2012 SC 132), Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others v. WAPDA and others (1997 SCMR 641) and Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and 3 others v. The Government of the Punjab, through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1991 SC 35). On the concept of institutional discretion, this Court has held in Liagat Ali Chugtai v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Railways and 6 others (2012 PLC (C.S.) 1062):

35. On an institutional level, structuring the discretion is to protect the institution and the public from the vice of arbitrariness. It is to filter whims, vagaries, caprice, surmises and volatility attached to human behaviour, translated into human dissection. These vices are a breeding ground for corruption, nepotism and favourtism. These vices are like termites and if permitted to exist. Weaken the foundations of democratic public institutions. Reference at' this stage is made to the case of Aman Ullah Khan and others v. The Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others (PLD 1990 SC 1092 at page 1147), relevant part of para 62 reads as under:

"Wherever wide-worded powers conferring discretion exist, there remains always the need to structure the discretion and it has been pointed out in the Administrative Law Text by Kenneth Culp Davis that the structuring of discretion only means regularizing it, organizing it, producing order in it so that decision will achieve the high quality of justice. The seven instruments that are most useful in the structuring of discretionary power are open plans, open policy statements, open rules, open findings, open reasons, open precedents and fair informal procedure. Somehow, in our context, the wide worded conferment of discretionary powers or reservation of discretion, without framing rules to regulate its exercise, has been taken to be an enhancement of the power and it gives that impression in the first instance but where the authorities fail to rationalize it and regulate it by Rules, or Policy statements or precedents, the Courts have to intervene more often, than is necessary, apart from the exercise of such power appearing Arbitrary, and capricious at times".

36. The above principles have been consistently reiterated in the cases of Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rawalpindi v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Com any Limited Rawalpindi (PLD 1991 SC 14), Director Food, N.-W.F.P. and another v. Messrs Madina Flour and General Mills (Pvt. Ltd. and 18 others (PLD 2001 SC 1), Chief Secretary Punjab and others v. Abdul Raoof Dasti, (2006 SCMR 1876), Abdul Wahab and another v. Secretary, Government of Balochistan and another (2009 SCMR 1354) and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and others (AIR 1991 SC 101)."

17. The constitutional and jurisprudential importance of structured discretion is that it nurses the requirement of due process, fairness, fair trial and other fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution. and 0 safeguards the discretion against the vice ,of discrimination and arbitrariness. Exercise of structured discretion is incomplete if it is not translated into a speaking order, furnishing reasons as mandated under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Reliance is placed on H Messrs Air ort Su ort Services v. The Air, ort Mana. er, I uaid-e-Azam International Air. on, Karachi and others (1998 SCMR 2268), Liagat Ali Menton and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1994 SC 556), Secretary to Government o N.-W.F.P. and another v. Muhammad Nawaz and another (PLD 1996 SC 837), Rukhsar Ali and 11 others v. Government o N.W.F.P. through, It Secretor Education, Peshawar and 3 others (2003 PLC (C.S.) 1453), Pakistan International Airline's Corporation through Chairman and others V. Shahzad Farooq Malik and another (2004 SCMR 158) and Ashfaq Hussain v. Government of the Punjab and others (2011 PLC (C.S) 799). An unreasoned and non-speaking order generates mistrust, suspicion, dubiety .and frustration 'amongst the officers. They are compelled to harbour doubts about the recruitment process, hence lowering the prestige and credibility of the selection process and as a result of the 1 institution. It also has a dispiriting effect on the officers who continue to work with wavering interest and loyalty thus 'putting down the overall productivity of the institution. Such are the demerits of an unstructured, unreasoned and closed door recruitment process in a public sector. Therefore, it is in the public interest and in the larger interest of the institution if recruitment under Rule 7 of the Rules is from amongst thed pool of officers awaiting' promotion on the basis of an open an transparent intelligent objective criteria followed by a speaking order. It is reiterated for clarity that the power of selection under Rule 7 can be used to select or pick and choose any officer of liking from amongst the officers without considering all the officers awaiting', promotion in the pool.

18. Educational qualification is a valid parameter for the said purpose but not the sole parameter. The impugned order also establishes ] the same as respondent No:4 holding a B.A. degree was promoted and similarly vide order dated 13-1-2010 one Imran Safdar (Reader) holding a B.A. degree was promoted as Deputy Registrar. Similarly, seniority is not the determining factor in a selection post but can tilt the scales in 1 favour of the senior officer in case of a tie. Reliance is placed on Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others (2010 SCMR 1301) and Liaqat Ali Chugtai v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Railways and 6 others (2012 PLC (C.S.) 1062. Therefore, impugned order fails to give reasons for superseding the appellant and for selecting respondent No.4 over several others including the appellant. RULE 26.

19. Respondents also laid emphasis on Rule 26 of the Rules to justify the impugned order. We have, therefore carefully examined this Rule which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to limit or abridge the powers of the Chief Justice to appoint or promote any person who has neither passed nor qualified at an examination held by the Public Service Commission or under these rules or to deal with the case of any person in such manner as may appear to him to be, just and equitable." (emphasis supplied)

20. The said Rule has an unsavoury history and has achieved an unpalatable notoriety over the years as it allows officers to jump the queue without necessarily being the best man for the job. The power under the aforesaid Rule does not vest the Competent Authority with unfettered and unguided power to override the regular selection process under Rule 7 or to brush aside the vested rights of officers, who await their turn to be considered for promotion. Any such interpretation will offend the constitutional obligation of due process and fair trial under m Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution. The said Rule cannot possibly equip the Competent. Authority with the license to pick and choose any officer for promotion as this would be facially discriminatory, offending Article 25 of the Constitution. The said Rule cosmetically appears to empower the Competent Authority with unabridged power but in substance the Rule itself regulates and harnesses the power by providing its exercise "in a manner as may appear to him [Competent Authority] to be just and equitable". Mr. Rustam S. Sidhwa, J. speaking for the august supreme Court of. Pakistan in Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar's case' while discussing section 22 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 which is almost similar to Rule 26, held as follows:

"7 .... What is 'just and equitable'? The Word 'just' denotes that which is right and proper, that which can be justified in law. Since we are dealing with the rights of civil servants under the Punjab Civil Servants Act. 1974 and the various rules that are framed thereunder or are already in force, the word 'just' would mean that which is legal and proper under the said Act or the rules or that which imports the exercise of good judgment or discriminatory appraisal within the bounds of reason and which negatives the presence of any arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious determination, or anything which causes injury to a person. The word `equitable' means that which is founded in equity, i.e. that which is fair, reasonable, unbiased, impartial, even handed; the construction of a matter according to its reason and spirit. Thus, the section creates a balance. The learned Governor, in appraising the case of a civil servant, can ignore limiting or abridging factors contained in the Act or in any rule but he must confine himself within the limits of justice and equity, for no sooner he finds he is about to transgress those limits, a cut off point arises and he must control impetuosity and stay further transgression, so that the purpose of the law or rule may not be flagrantly violated or defeated under the guise of its exercise...."

21. The power under Rule 26 has a limited use and can be invokedlr in special emergent circumstances. In the context of the present case, Rule 26 cannot' be invoked to pick and choose any officer awaiting promotion or otherwise without first considering all the officers in the t pool. It, however, can be used where there is no officer available in the pool and the post requires to be filled on an emergency basis, Exercise of this special power is harnessed by strict requirement of detailed deliberations by the Competent Authority followed by a well-reasoned order that would justify side tracking the normal procedure under the Rules.

22. In a country governed by laws and not men where rule of law reigns supreme, no public functionary, who is a trustee on behalf of the people, has the Power or the authority to bestow personal favours or largesse at the expense of the institution. Higher the office of the public functionary, higher the responsibility in discharging the sacred trusteeship. All the judges of this Court are public functionaries and hold their post as a trustee on behalf of the people of Pakistan in terms of the oath under Article 194 of the Constitution which provides that they will not allow their personal interest to influence their official conduct or official decisions and in all circumstances will do right to all manner of People according to law without fear, favour, affection or ill-will. Every administrative decision of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, under the Rules, most therefore be for the benefit and welfare of the institution i.e. Lahore High Court provided it passes the test of due process. Even though the impugned order mentions that it is in the public interest it P fails to meet the requirement of due process as it lacks reasons.

23. Even on the administrative side, no other institution more than the judiciary is under a moral obligation to maintain the highest standards of fairness in its internal procedure and be reckoned as a ' citadel of meritocracy, setting trends in good governance, fairplay, openness and transparency for other institutions to emulate. We, therefore, hold that Rule 26 is to be invoked by the Competent Authority in special circumstances after thorough deliberation and by furnishing detailed reasons for its exercise. Rule 26 is, therefore, an exception and not a general rule and must be sparingly invoked in special S circumstances. Reliance is placed on Manzoor Hussain and 2 others v. Muhammad Ashraf and another (1999 PLC (C.S.) 279). It is further held that in cases of appointment and promotion Rule 26 will be available to the Competent Authority only when all the officers available T in the talent pool for appointment or promotion to the post in question have been duly considered and not found suitable through a speaking order.

24. All the appointments and promotions to selection posts shall be in accordance with Rule 7 by considering the service record and other antecedents of the officers by employing an objective criteria as discussed above. Registrar of this Court will ensure that all future appointments in the High Court seek guidance from the principles laid down above. He will also place all the orders passed by the Competent U Authority (now or in the past) under Rule 26 or Rule 7 (without consideration of the officers in the pool) before the Competent Authority for appropriate orders in accordance with law so that even the slightest Perception of taint, if any, of nepotism and jobbery is plucked out of its roots by our institution. REVISION OF EXISTING RULES. We have been informed by Syed Aamir Ali, Assistant Registrar (Legislation) of this Court that the present Rules which have been framed under the Constitution of the Pakistan, 1956 have been put up for revision several times but the exercise has not yet been completed. Sindh High Court has framed fresh Rules in 2006 Under Article 208 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and so has the Peshawar High Court. The Registrar will, at the earliest, place the matter of revision of the Rules under Article 208 of the Constitution before the Competent Authority for appropriate orders along with the copies of the revised Rules framed by the other High Courts. RELIEF

26. For the above reasons, this appeal is allowed and impugned order of, promotion dated 10-7-2009 to the extent of respondent No.4 is set aside and the appellant is hereby promoted as Deputy Registrar w.e.f. 10-7-2009. The appellant and respondents Nos.2 and 3 shall retain their inter-seniority as maintained prior to their promotion''. Learned Counsel for the appellant had submitted that the appellant would forgo his right to back benefits if his appeal is allowed. Therefore, the appellant is promoted without back benefits to the post of Deputy Registrar (BS-19) w.e.f 10-7-2009. Respondent No.4 will be considered for promotion on his own turn16 in accordance with Rule 7 and the rotational policy.

27. This appeal is allowed in the above terms and copy of the judgment shall be supplied to all the departments of the High Court for strict compliance and future guidance. SCHEDULE II Authority passing the order Appellate Authority

1. Registrar Administration Judge

2. Administration Judge Chief-Justice

3. When Chief Justice is the Administration Judge, or when acting under Rule 23(b) A Bench of two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice. MWA/T I/L Appeal allowed.