2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.

Through the titled petition, leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 10.09.2018, whereby the writ petition filed by respondents Nos.1 to 9, herein has been disposed of in the following terms: "In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, official respondents are directed that while filling the posts of Subject Specialist Economics, seniority and promotion quota as per service rules, must be strictly adhered."

2. Precise facts for disposal of the instant petition for leave to appeal are that respondents Nos.1 to 9, herein, filed a writ petition in the High Court alleging therein, that they are permanent employees of the Education Department. According to the departmental Service Rules, 67% posts of Subject Specialists shall be filled in by promotion and 33% quota shall be filled in by initial recruitment. It was alleged that the official respondents prepared/issued a seniority list in year 2011, thereafter in 2013 and then in 2014, wherein, the names of respondent No.4, petitioner No.2, herein, is listed at serial Nos.8 and 10, and the name of respondent No.5, petitioner, No.1, herein, is not mentioned anywhere in the list, whereas the names of the petitioners, respondents, herein, are mentioned prior to him. It was further alleged that respondent No.2, therein, issued the notification dated 16.03.2012, through which respondent No.4, therein, was appointed as Subject Specialist Economics on current charge basis in Government Boys High School Jhand Garaan Muzaffarabad by violating the seniority list and thereafter he has been transferred vide notification dated 02.04.2012 to Government Boys Higher Secondary School Qamrooti Nakyal, which is contrary to law, rules and without lawful authority. After necessary proceeding, the learned High Court through the impugned judgment dated 10.09.2018 disposed of the writ petition in the terms indicated in the preceding para, hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. Ch. Muhammad Kaleem Afsar, Advocate, while appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is against law and the record, which is liable to be vacated. He submitted that the respondents/petitioners, in the High Court challenged the promotion as well as transfer orders of the petitioners which fall within the definition of terms and conditions of the service and the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was enjoined up the learned High Court to dismiss the writ petition in limine but the learned High Court illegally admitted the same for regular hearing, which even otherwise was hit by the principle of laches. The respondents/petitioners in the High Court also failed to append the current charge order of petitioner No.2 along with the writ petition, but the learned High Court while ignoring all these important aspects of the case passed the impugned judgment, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He requested for grant of leave.

4. On the other hand, Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the caveator respondents, forcefully opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners while submitting that no adverse order has been passed by the learned High Court against the petitioners, therefore, they have got no locus standi to file this petition. He argued that admittedly, the appointments of the petitioners were made on current charge basis which in view of the statutory provisions come to an end on appointment of a person on regular basis or on expiry of six months, whichever is earlier. The learned High Court has adopted the proper course and committed no illegality while issuing the direction to fill in the posts while adhering to the seniority and promotion quota. The petitioners have failed to point out any legal question involved in the case which is prerequisite for grant of leave. The instant petition merits dismissal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned judgment along with the other record made available. According to the admitted facts the petitioners herein, were appointed on current charge basis which in view of the statutory provision i.e. Rule 10-B(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, shall come to end on the appointments made on regular basis or on expiry of six months, whichever is earlier. In view of the aforesaid statutory provision the learned High Court has committed no illegality while disposing of the writ petition with a direction to fill in the posts of Subject Specialists Economics while adhering to the seniority and promotion quota.

6. Even otherwise, through the impugned judgment, neither the transfer order of the petitioner nor his promotion order has been set aside and only a direction has been issued for filling in the posts which is quite in accordance with law. As no adverse order has been passed against the petitioners, herein, therefore, they have no locus standi to file the instant petition. The petitioners have failed to point out any legal question involved in the petition for leave to appeal which is prerequisite for grant of leave. Resultantly, finding no force this petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. ZC/42/SC(AJ&K) Leave refused.