' Supra titled petition for leave to appeal is directed against the orders of the High Court passed on 19-1-2004 and 9-2-2004, whereby the amendment was allowed to the respondent in his writ petition.
2. Relevant facts, briefly stated, are that respondent No.1, Sardar Laeeq Ahmed Khan, claims himself to be the first class State Subject having domicile of District Kotli. According to him, he passed M.Sc.
Economics from the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in 1st Division. In response to the advertisement published in the newspaper by the Public Service Commission inviting applications from desirous candidates to contest for their induction in service in different disciplines, he also moved an application before the Public Service Commission and later on appeared in the test and interview. According to him, in the merit list he was placed at Serial No.2 but was inducted in service temporarily as an ad hoc Lecturer. He filed a writ petition in the High Court on 22-8-2002, seeking direction from the High Court against the official respondents to the effect that they should issue a regular appointment order as Lecturer Economics in his favour against the quota reserved for District Kotli. His writ petition was admitted for regular hearing by the High Court vide order dated 3-10-2002. Thereafter he moved an application for amendment which was allowed to him on 19-1- 2004. Later on he filed an amended writ petition in the. High Court. In the meantime the present petitioner was appointed as Lecturer Economics against the quota reserved for District Kotli.
Respondent No.1, Sardar Laeeq Ahmed Khan, claiming better merits as compared to the present petitioner, moved another application for amendment in the writ petition challenging the appointment of the present petitioner on the ground that in the drawn merit list of the Public Service Commission he was placed ahead of the present petitioner, therefore, the official respondents should have given him preference over the petitioner in making regular order of appointment for Lecturer Economics against the quota reserved for District Kotli. The application was allowed by the High Court vide order dated 9-2-2004 and the present petitioner and pro forma respondents were directed to file written statement and other documents, if any, before the High Court. The present petitioner challenged both the orders passed by the High Court on 19-1- 2004 and 9-2-2004, respectively, before this Court through the instant petition for leave to appeal.
3. Sardar Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client was made party on the application of the respondent without providing him the right of hearing, therefore, the order passed by the High Court on 9-2-2004, is bad in law. He further argued that the first amendment made by the High Court on 19-1-2004, is also bad in law, therefore, both the orders are liable to be set aside. According to him, the orders of the High Court dated 9-2-2004 and 20-2- 2004, summoning the petitioner and demanding written, statement from him are without lawful jurisdiction. He further argued that through an amendment the order of appointment of the petitioner was challenged which was an independent order and if the respondent was. Aggrieved by any order passed in favour of his , client, he should have filed separate wilt petition before the High Court challenging the same. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Judge in the High Court by allowing the amendment in the writ petition ignored the fact that the requisite amendment has changed the nature of previous writ petition because the original writ petition was filed seeking direction against pro forma respondents Nos.2 to 6 which was a writ of mandamus; whereas through amendment the appointment order of the petitioner was challenged which was certiorari in nature, as such, the orders allowing the amendment are not sustainable under law and thus are liable to be set aside.
4. Conversely, it was argued by Ch. Muhammad Reaz Alam, the learned counsel for the respondent, that this petition is liable to be dismissed summarily on the ground that petitioner through this petition has challenged two orders of the High Court passed on 19-1-2004 and 9-2-2004, respectively, whereas under Orter 13, rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978, he should have filed two petitions for leave to appeal against each order passed by the High Court. The reliance was placed upon an unreported judgment of this Court titled Habib Bank Ltd. v. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum decided on 28-3-1995, wherein, in paras.6, 7 and 8, it was laid down as under:- "(6) After giving our due consideration to the matter, hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, and perusal of record we are of considered view that only one appeal filed against two separate judgments recorded by the High Court is not tenable.
(7) Order 13 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, provides as under:-- "(1) A petition for special leave to appeal shall be lodged in this Court within sixty days of the judgment or order sought to be appealed from or as the case may be within thirty days from the date of the refusal of grant of certificate under section 42(11) of the Constitution by the High Court.
(2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(3) (i) The petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of his petition for special leave to appeal;
(ii) The judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court and the order of the High Court refusing grant of certificate under section 42(11) of the Constitution, if any, one copy each of which shall be certified to be correct;
(iii) xxxx xxxx XXXX XXXX xxxxx
(iv) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX
(4) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX xxxxx
(5) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx- ' From the plain reading of the above order and rules, it becomes abundantly clear that rules speak of only judgment and order of High Court to be appealed and not the orders and judgments.
Independent judgments were delivered by the learned Judge in the High Court, so one appeal filed against both the orders was not maintainable."
5. The learned counsel for respondent No.1, further argued that his client had already filed writ petition in the High Court seeking direction that,official respondents should issue his regular appointment order against the vacant post of Lecturer Economics. When during the pendency of his writ petition the present petitioner was accommodated on regular basis in service against the vacant post he moved an application for amendment challenging his appointment on the basis of merits before the High Court. The High Court allowed his application and impleaded the present petitioner in the line of respondents. The present petitioner has been asked to file his written statement, documents, affidavit, if any, in support of his claim to contradict the claim of the respondent. No injustice has been done with him, therefore, the petition for leave to appeal on account of the aforementioned technical ground as well as on facts having no merit is liable to be dismissed.
6. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, that his client belonged to District Kotli and in the merit list drawn by the Public Service Commission after conducting the test and interview was placed at Serial No.2, whereas the petitioner was below in the merit list. In these circumstances the preference should have been given to his client to accommodate him permanently against the vacancy whereas he has been appointed as an ad hoc Lecturer and the present petitioner, who was below in the merit list, was appointed permanently against the vacant post. He, therefore, submitted that the order of the High Court is in accordance with the. Law.
7. I have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. Under Order 13, rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules the petition for leave to appeal or an appeal can be filed against the order or judgment of the High Court. In any case various orders or judgments passed by the High Court cannot be challenged through single petition or appeal before this Court, as has been held in Habib Bank's case referred to above. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, is, therefore, upheld. Even on merits the petitioner has got no case. The respondent's writ petition is pending in the High Court since 22-8-2002. During the pendency of his writ petition, according to his claim, the petitioner who was below in the merit list has been appointed on regular basis as Lecturer Economics against the vacancy falling in the quota of District Kotli, therefore, no error was committed by the High Court in allowing his application for amendment and impleading the present petitioner in the line of answering respondents.
8. In view of the above, this petition for leave to appeal having no merit, is dismissed.
9. Alongwith the petition an application has been moved for the maintenance of status quo till the disposal of petition for leave to appeal. As petition for leave to appeal has been dismissed, therefore, this miscellaneous application having become infructuous is also dismissed.