2020 PLC(CS)N 2

ANDALEEB SAHIR BUTT Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Citation2020 PLC(CS)N 2

CourtSupreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Judge(s)Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, CJ and Ghulam Mustafa Mughal

GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, J.---- The captioned appeal by leave of-the Court has been directed against the judgment dated 03.02.2018, passed by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir service Tribunal in Service Appeals Nos.24 and 43 of 2015.

2. The facts forming the background ofthe captioned appeal are that vide Government notification on dated 16.04.2014, the recommendations of selection board No.2, respondents No.12 and 13, herein, were promoted as Deputy Director Information B-18 in Directorate General of Public Relations (DGPR) on regular basis. The appellant, herein, challenged the legality and correctness of the notification dated 16.04.2014 through appeal No.24 before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal on 06.01.2015. was alleged that be is senior most -Deputy Director Information B-18 and is at serial No.1 of the seniority list. It was further alleged that his promotion has been kept in abeyance for more than 4 years with male fide intention. It was stated that meanwhile 3 appeals were filed by him before the Service Tribunal. The first was decided on 21.12.2010, whereby, a direction wan given by the learned Service Tribunal promotion of the appellant, herein, in B-18 within 3 months but the judgment was not implemented. It was further slated that thereafter the appellant, herein, again invoked the jurisdiction or the learned Service Tribunal and vide judgment dated 28.11.2013 the learned Service Tribunal ac-a-in directed the respondents, therein, t promote the appellant, herein, in B-18. It was claimed that during pendency of the proceedings, the respondents secretly promoted the private-respondents. herein, vide notification ate d 16.04.2014, It was further claimed that the promotions of the private-respondents, herein, is illegal, violative of law and seniority. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The respondents, herein, contested the appeal filing written statement/objections and stated the reasons for non-consideration of the appellant, herein, for promotion. It was also stated that the appeal is hopelessly by time barred. On 12-1-2015, the appellant, herein, filed appeal No.43 against the notification dated 6.1.2015, whereby, respondent No.12, therein, has further been promoted as Director Information B-19. It was stated that this notification is also violative of law, seniority and judgments of the Courts because the appellant, herein, has not been considered as yet for promotion is was directed by the learned Service Tribunal. This app-al was also contested by the respondents by filing written statement/objections. After necessary proceedings and hearing the parties, the learned Service Tribunal through the impugned consolidated judgment dated 03.02.2018, dismissed the appeals OP the ground that the' appellant, herein, was considered for promotion but has not been found fit as such by the respective selection board and the wisdom of the selection board cannot be substituted. It was also held that the appeal No.24/2015 is hopelessly. time barred for having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation despite knowledge of -the notification dated 16,04..2014.

3. The stand of the appellant, herein, before the Service Tribunal in appeal No.24/2015 was that he got knowledge of the notification dated 16.04.2015 through indulgence of the Court as the same was kept secret, hence, could not be challenged in time. It was stat-d by him in the appeal that he received the said notification on 05.07.2915 and after obtaining its certified copy, filed appeal on 06.01.2015 which was within limitation. This fact has been considered by the learned Service Tribunal depth. During the course of arguments before this Court, the appellant, herein, was directed to produce a copy of the writ petition filed before the High Court which has been produced by him. The prayer, clause of the writ petition reveals that it was in the knowledge of the appellant that the promotion case of the private-respondents herein, was approved on 28.11.2013 the learned High Court after production of the promotion notification, dismissed the writ petition e 13.02,2014, therefore, it was enjoined upon the appellant herein, to file appeal within limitation. The learned Service Tribunal has given sound reasoning for dismissing the appeal No.24, hence, we are not inclined t disturb the findings recorded by it which are supported and facts.

4. So far as, appeal No.43 is concerned, it was filed against the notification dated 06.01.2015. the learned Service Tribunal has considered the relevant rules which provide that for promotion as Director Press Information/Publicity/Protocol B-i9, the Deputy Director B-18 in the concerned unit having at least 12 years' service in B-17 and above: or 7 years' service in case of initial recruitment in B-18, is eligible. The appellant, herein was net admittedly a confirmed Deputy Director Information B-18, therefore, could not be considered for promotion in B-19. He cannot be said to be an aggrieved person against the notification dated 06.01.2015. In this regard, the leaned Service Tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases titled Tariq Zia Abbasi v. Speaker AJK Legislative Assembly and others (Civil PLA No.109/2015, decided on 10.02.2016) and Syed Shoukat Hussain Ganai v. Abdul Rehman Abbasi and others 1992 SCMR 369 = 1992 PLC (C.S.) 438. We endorse the view taken by the learned Service Tribunal and does not find and illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 03.02.2018.

The upshot of the above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal, the same is, here y, dismissed with costs.

ZC/78/SC(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.