Mian Hamid Farooq, J.--We, through this single judgment, propose to decide two connected petitions (Crl.PLA No, 176 of 2008 & Crl.PLA No, 219 of 2008), as identical questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions and those are between the same parties.
2. Syed Masood Alam Rizvi, etc (the petitioners), through filing the petition (Crl..PLA. No, 176 of 2008), seek leave to appeal against order dated 21.05.2008, whereby learned Lahore High Court at Lahore directed Petitioner No, 1 to file, reply to the Criminal Petition (Crl. Org. No, 323-W of 2008) to be charged in contempt and issued notices to other petitioners, while Dr. Muhammad Saeed (the respondent') through filing other petition (Crl. PLA No, 219 of 2008), seeks leave to appeal against order dated 27.05.2008, passed by the learned Lahore High Court at Lahore, through which it dismissed his petition (Crl. Org: No, 383-W of 2007) for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners.
3. Facts, relevant for the decision of the afore-noted petitions, are that the respondent, through the constitutional petition (Writ Petition No, 1753 or 2006), challenged the notification dated 14.11.2005, whereby his case for promotion to BS-21 was rejected and other doctors allegedly junior to him were promoted. Said petition was disposed of by the learned High Court, on 25.07.2006, directing the petitioners to complete service record of the respondent and subject to his eligibility present the same before the competent authority for considering his merit and fitness for promotion.
Professor Anwar A. Khan (Petitioner No, 3 in Crl. PLA No, 176 of 2008) challenged the said decision through filing the appeal (ICA No, 258 of 2006) and the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Lahore partially modified the order dated 25.07.2006 holding that the grant of BS-21 is a matter for the competent authority to consider, vide judgment dated 18.10.2006. The respondent challenged the said judgment through filing civil petition (CPLA No, 2388-L of 2006), which was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 02.02.2007, observing that "on completion of the record of the petitioner, the same should be placed before the competent authority for examining his case for promotion to BS-21 in accordance with law and prevailing policy". According to the respondent, various written and oral requests, including a legal notice, for implementation of afore-stated orders passed by the High Court and this Court proved abortive and his grievance was not redressed. He, on 13.06.2007, filed the contempt petition (Crl. Org. No, 383-W of 2007) (`First petition') for initiating contempt proceedings against Syed Masood Alam Rizvi, (Petitioner No, 1) who resisted it through filing the reply. It appears that in the meantime cases of certain persons, including the respondent, for grant ofunder meritorious basis were submitted- to the Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, however, none of the officers of Sheikh Zayed Post Graduate Medical Institute, Lahore (SZPGMI) was approved for grant of BS-21 on the said basis and this was communicated, vide order dated 17.01.2008. During the proceedings, in the "First Petition" the learned High Court, on 17.03.2008, directed the petitioners "to take all steps to comply with" the order dated 02.02.2007, and present the case before the competent authority for regular promotion to BS-21 as directed by the High Court and by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners was further directed to file report on or before 15.04.2008. Pursuant thereto the report, in compliance with order dated 17.03.2008, coupled with the minutes of the meetings of department held on 31.03.2008, was submitted before the Court. It was reported that the committee considered the case of the respondent and concluded that there is no regular post available in BS-21, against which any of the Professors could be promoted and no Professor was promoted to BS-21 through regular promotion. During pendency of the "First petition", the respondent, on 20.05.2008, opted to file another petition (Crl. Org. No, 323-W of 2008) "Second Petition" against the petitioners, which came up for hearing before the learned High Court on 21.05.2008 and the learned single Judge in Chambers issued notice to the Petitioner No, 1 (Syed Masood Alam Rizvi) "to be charged in contempt" and also issued notices to the other respondents. Syed Masood Alam Rizvi alongwith others challenged the order dated 21.05.2008 before this Court through Cr1. PLA No, 176 of 2008.
During pendency of the "second petition", the learned High Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the "First petition" (Crl. Org. No, 383-W of 2007), vide order dated 27.05.2008, which is the subject matter of the Crl. PLA No, 219 of 2008 filed by the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that successive contempt petitions on the same subject matter and arising out of one order could neither be entertained nor competent before the High Court; that in view of dismissal of first contempt petition on 27.05.2008, the "second petition" lost its efficacy; that the directions of the High Court as well as of this Court were complied with in letter and spirit, therefore, the Petitioners were not guilty of committing contempt of the Court; that the respondent could not seek promotion in regular course after the post of Professor and that he filed two contempt petitions to compel the petitioners for creating a post of BS-21 for him.
Conversely, learned counsel representing the respondent submitted that since order dated 21.05.2008 was an interim order, therefore, could not be assailed before this Court. He further submitted that orders passed by the High Court as well as by this Court for promotion of Dr. Muhammad Saeed to BS-21 were not complied with and thus the petitioners committed contempt of the Court and the learned High Court while dismissing first contempt petition committed grave legal error.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and deeply examined order dated 21.05.2008 in order to determine as to whether it is an interim order or a final order. We found that the learned single Judge while issuing notice to Petitioner No, 1 (Syed Masood Alam Rizvi) specifically directed that notice be issued to him for a date "to be charged in contempt". The words "to be charged in contempt" are of utmost significance. It flows therefrom that the learned High Court summoned the Petitioner No, 1 to charge him for committing contempt of Court. It appears from the tenor of the order that the learned Judge after proper application of mind and with determination to proceed against the A Petitioner No, 1 under contempt laws issued notice to him. We have no doubt in our mind that the learned single Judge was convinced that the Petitioner No, 1 committed contempt of the Court and he be charged for contempt and that appeared to be the reason why the Petitioner No, 1 was issued notice to be charged in contempt, while rest of the petitioners were issued notices only to file reply to the "second petition". In view whereof, as the learned Judge expressed his mind to charge the Petitioner No, 1 in contempt proceedings, therefore, the said order for all intents and purposes is a final order and hence could be assailed before this Court.
6. The respondent filed the "second contempt" petition (Crl. Org. No, 323-W of 2008) on 20.05.2008, when his "first petition" (Crl. Org. No, 383-W of 2007) was pending. It may be noted that the respondent admitted in pare 2 of the "second petition" that,. "it is the second contempt petition".
The "first petition" was dismissed on merits by the High Court on 27.05.2008. Now the question arises. as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as to whether during pendency of the ."first petition", the "second petition" was competent in law. We compared the contents of the afore-noted two petitions and found that pares 3 to 13 of the "second petition" are merely reproduction of pares .2 to 12 of the "first petition, while rest of the pares are rejoinder to the reply of the "first petition". Admittedly, the respondent filed the "second petition" on the same subject matter and seeking same relief for no apparent reasons. His "second petition" does not even feebly indicate as to what were the reasons necessitating filing of the "second petition". Even the learned counsel for the respondent could not demonstrate from the available record as to why the second petition on the same subject matter was filed and that too at a stage when his "first petition" for same relief was pending before the same High Court. A litigant cannot be allowed to file repetitive petitions on the same subject matter and for the same relief. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that "second petition" was not competent in law during pendency of the 'first petition" and it deserved to be dismissed on the short ground that the "first petition' stood dismissed on merits on 27.05.2008 by the High Court. It was noted in para 2 of the "second petition" that, "The first contempt petition No, Crl. Org. No, 383-W/2007 was heard by his lordship Mr. Justice Maulvi Anwar- ul-Haq". The learned Judge in Chambers, it appears, on 21.05.2008 without noticing that the "first petition" was pending proceeded to summon the petitioners in the "second petition" and directed them to file reply to the "second petition" inasmuch as Petitioner No, 1 was called upon to file reply to be charged in contempt. We are unable to subscribe view of the learned High Court to summon the petitioners in the "second petition". Proper course for the High Court would have been, on 21.05.2008, to adjourn the "second petition" to be heard along with the "first petition". Under the facts and circumstances of the present case the "second petition" was incompetent and not maintainable in law and, therefore, was liable to be dismissed.
7. Even otherwise the respondent has got no case on merits. It appears appropriate to reproduce operative portions of different orders passed by the High Court and by this Court.
(i) Order dated 25.07.2006 passed in respondent's petition (Writ Petition No, 1753 of 2006) by the learned single Judge of Lahore High Court at Lahore:-- "It goes without saying and is so directed that the respondents shall act expeditiously in the matter of "completing the service record of the petitioner and; subject to his eligibility presenting the same before the competent authority for considering the petitioner's merit and fitness for promotion. The needful for the completion of the said record shall be accomplished by the respondents within four weeks after the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Disposed of."
(ii) Order dated 18.10.2006 passed in Petitioner No, 3's appeal (ICA No, 258 of 2006) passed by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore:-- "The appeal is accordingly disposed of with this modification that whereas the service record of Respondent No, 1 needs to be completed expeditiously, the grant of BS.21 is a matter for the competent authority to consider in the light of the prevailing policy."
(iii) Order dated 02.02.2007, passed by this Court in respondent's petition (CPLA No, 2388-L of 2006): -- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the order passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in WP No, 1753/2006, (dated 25.07.2006) and in ICA No, on completion of record of the petitioner, the same should be placed before the competent authority for examining his case for promotion to BS-21, in accordance with law and prevailing policy."
The respondent alleging violation and disobedience of orders dated 25.07.2006 and 02.02.2007 filed the afore-stated two contempt petitions. Record of the case manifests that pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners completed the missing service record of the respondent and referred the case to the Committee for the grant of BS-21 on meritorious grounds and then in compliance with the order dated 17.03.2008 meeting of the Committee was convened for considering the case of the respondent for regular promotion to BS-21. It is evident from the report of the Committee that the said exercise was undertaken in obedience to order dated 17.03.2008 and the Committee came to the conclusion that no professor could be promoted to regular BS-21 through regular promotion and that no regular post in BS-21 exists against which any professor could be promoted. Relevant portion whereof has been reproduced in the impugned order dated 27.05.2008. The petitioners by submitting the case of the respondent before the competent authority complied with the directions of the High Court and by this Court, thus it cannot be argued that the petitioners failed to comply with the directions passed by the learned High Court and by this Court. Under the circumstances, no case for initiating contempt proceedings was made out against the petitioners.
The learned High Court while dismissing "first petition" did not commit any error in law rather it after examining the entire record of the case and orders passed at different stages rightly decided the case after giving cogent reasons, which are not only in accordance with the record of the case but also in consonance with the law on the subject. We are not persuaded to reverse the findings of the learned High Court rendered in order dated 27.05.2008.
8. There is another aspect of the case. Admittedly, letter dated 17.01.2008 issued by the Cabinet Division informing that "none of the officer of SZPGMI has been approved for grant of BS-21 on meritorious basis" was not challenged by the respondent before any forum and he instead of assailing the said order before the competent Court of law opted to file the "second petition". We have a feeling that the respondent endeavored to secure his promotion through exercise of pressure tactics and by filing repetitive contempt petitions and thus even equity does not lean in his favour.
9. Assuming a case for initiating contempt proceedings was made out against the petitioners, even then in view of the settled law, that a matter of contempt is between the Court and the alleged contemnor, it was upto the Court either to take any appropriate action against the alleged contemnors or drop the matter. On this count too the respondent has got no case.
10. For the foregoing reasons, Crl.PLA No, 176 of 2008, filed by Syed Masood Alam Rizvi, etc is converted into appeal and allowed; consequently order dated 21.05.2007, passed by the learned High Court is set aside and Crl. Org. No, 323-W of 2008 stands dismissed, while Crl. PLA No, 219 of 2008, filed by Dr. Muhammad Saeed, being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.