JAMILA BEGUM Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR , M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi

SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN) .‑‑‑The above noted five appeals are directed against the Government Notifications dated 18‑6‑1990, 18‑6‑1990, 19‑6‑1990, 27‑5‑1990 and 19‑6‑1990 by which the appellants Jamila Begum, Bushra Mahmooda, Insha Zeb Hashmi, Nasreen Faiz and Farkhanda Jabeen were reverted to the posts of senior teachers in the Education Department. Since all the five appeals involve common questions of law and facts, we proposed to decide them by this single judgment.

2. The subject‑matter of the above five appeals is the same although the orders of their temporary promotion and that of reversion were passed by the respondent‑Government on different dates. The facts to be briefly summarised are that there were some vacancies of Head Mistresses in the Girls High Schools of Azad Kashmir and the Education Department proposed the names of the appellants to be temporarily promoted against the vacant posts. The Department was required to give the names of such senior teachresses as were to be found deserving to be promoted to the next higher post according to the seniority and merits. But strangely enough, the Department selected the names of such school teachresses who were not qualified on merits for the posts of Head Mistresses. Before making the temporary arrangements, the Department also felt advised to find out the willingness of the appellants for assigning them higher responsibilities in their own pay and scale and the appellants accepted the offer after which their temporary promotions were ordered. The appellants acted on the posts of Head Mistresses for a period more than two years and were ultimately reverted to their original posts of senior teachresses under the impugned orders. Since the subject‑matter of the above five appeals was common, they were consolidated together for joint hearing by an order of this Tribunal. The grievances of the appellants are also common and they feel themselves aggrieved by the impugned orders of reversion. In the memos of their appeals, it is submitted by the appellants that since their promotion orders were not objected to by any teachress senior to them, they should not have been reverted to their original posts and the respondent‑Government must not have ordered their reversions after they had served as Head Mistresses in the High Schools for a period more than two years. According to them a show‑cause notice or a notice for personal hearing was necessary before making the impugned orders of reversion, but no such notice was ever given to them before making the order of their reversion. It is prayed by the appellants that they may be allowed to continue as Head Mistresses of High Schools and declared to have been permanently placed against the posts of Head Mistresses.

3. The above appeals were admitted for regular hearing by a short order of this Tribunal. The respondents were asked to file their objections as to the maintainability of the appeals. The objections received on behalf of the respondents are that the appellants were temporarily promoted to the posts of Head Mistresses, which was purely a stopgap arrangement. The appellants are not the aggrieved civil servants and their appeals are also time‑barred. The appellants are not entitled to any relief at this forum.

4. We have carefully considered the written and oral arguments as were submitted by the learned counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the order purported to be the promotion orders of the appellants and the impugned orders under which the earlier orders of promotions of the appellants were vacated. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that they were placed against the vacancies of Head Mistresses after the senior teachresses were given an option of service as Head Mistresses out of the District Headquarters or their home stations and they had presumably refused that offer. In this behalf the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the letters dated 10‑10‑1985 and i1‑5‑1987 on the files, which were written to the appellants for ascertaining their willingness to be posted as Head Mistresses temporarily. The learned counsel for the appellants also assailed the impugned orders on the ground that since higher responsibilities were assigned to the appellants, they were entitled to the basic pay of the higher posts and their reversions after a long period of service on the higher posts were against the principles of natural justice. According to them in the' given circumstances in which the appellants were, placed, a show‑cause notice or a notice for personal hearing was necessary to be issued to the appellants by the authority before making the impugned orders of their reversion. Before answering the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants we would like to peruse the nature of the orders of promotions as were made by the respondent Government in case of the appellants. Since the subject‑matter of all the orders is the same, the reproduction of any one of them will be quite, sufficient to appreciate the orders in their due perspective:‑

A plain reading of the above order makes it abundantly clear that the orders were made just to make the stopgap arrangement in the Girls High Schools. The reasons for making such temporary arrangements are not given in the relevant orders still one thing is very clear that most of the lady teachresses do not like to be posted out of their home stations and perhaps it was this reason that prevailed upon the respondents to make the impugned orders by way of a stopgap arrangement. There is nothing on the files to show that the teachresses senior to the appellants were given option of service as Headmistresses out of their home stations and after that they had refused to accept the promotion on the vacant posts. In fact a letter was written to the appellants for ascertaining their willingness whether they, would like to be posted against temporary jobs in their own pay and scale and by accepting the temporary appointments as Head Mistresses, the appellants have undoubtedly accepted to serve in a stopgap arrangement. We agree with it that the appellants were interested with a higher responsibility but since they accepted this responsibility on the same pay and scale as was held by them previously before taking the charge of their present appointments. Hence the appellants must not feel themselves aggrieved because the higher responsibilities were assigned to them by way of stopgap arrangement and they were in fact not promoted to the higher posts of Head Mistresses. Under the impugned orders, the stopgap arrangements previously ordered by the respondent‑Government shall cease to operate and instead of that the vacancies of Head Mistresses will be filled up on merits in accordance with the rule of procedure. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders issued by the respondents.

5. Among the appellants the impugned order of reversion in case of Jamila Begum was made on 18‑6‑1990 and she brought a review petition before the Government on 20‑8‑1990. She was required to file her review petition within a period of two months from the date of order of reversion. But she submitted her review petition four days after the period provided to her had run short. So his review petition before the Government was barred by limitation. The impugned order of reversion in case of appellant Nasreen Faiz was made on 27‑5‑1990. She filed review petition before the respondent Government on 20‑6‑1990 and brought an appeal at this forum on 17‑7‑1991 which is also time‑barred. The impugned order in case of Farkhanda Jabeen was made on 19‑6‑1990 she filed a review petition' before the Government on 16‑7‑1990 and brought her appeal before this forum on 2‑11‑1991. The appeal is hopelessly time barred. The impugned order in case of Bushra Mahmooda was made on 18‑6‑1990, she did not make any review petition before the Government and filed an appeal at this forum on 7‑7‑1991 which is also time barred. The impugned order in case of Insha Zeb was made on 19‑6‑1990 against which she did not make any review petition to the Government but brought an appeal at this forum on 7‑7‑1991 and this appeal is also time barred. Some of the appellants have spent sometime in pursuing writ petition before the High Court but we find no extenuating circumstances to condone the delay in filing the appeals before this forum. All the appeals are meriting dismissal on this account too that they are time‑barred and were not maintainable at this forum. However, we feel it advisable that the appellants must be paid officiating allowance for the period they held the temporary office of the Head Mistresses under the officiating arrangements.

6. For the above reasons, we dismiss all the appeals but give no order as to costs. The temporary injunction issued in favour of Bushra Mahmooda is hereby vacated. A copy of this judgment shall be placed on each file of the appeals.

A.A./172/Sr.A Appeals dismissed.