' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.--- This writ petition has been filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974.
2. It has been stated in the petition that Director Land Records Azad Jammu and Kashmir advertised some posts of Naib Tehsildar in Daily Newspaper on 30-11-2002. The petitioner applied for the same and Senior Member Board of Revenue recommended him for training vides order dated 20-11-2003. Thereafter Commissioner Muzaffarabad Division nominated him for training. The petitioner completed the training and a certificate regarding completion was issued in his favour.
Thereafter, the petitioner made repeated requests to the authority for his appointment but he was not appointed because one Shezad Nasim Abbasi, who had also completed the training for Naib Tehsildar but he was not appointed, had filed a writ petition in this court. So, the matter of appointment of the petitioner was kept pending till disposal of the writ petition filed by the aforesaid Shezad Nasim Abbasi. The petitioner after waiting for a considerable time seeks remedy from this court. It was further stated that the petitioner was liable to be appointed against the post of Naib Tehsildar but the respondents have failed to do so. The petitioner prayed to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus and to direct the respondents to appoint him against the said post on the basis of nomination of the petitioner by Senior Member Board of Revenue and Commissioner Muzaffarabad Division and completion of training for the said post.
3. . Notices were issued to the respondents to submit parawise comments but the respondents did not submit the same. Thereafter the writ petition was dismissed in limine. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner knocked at the door of the apex Court. The Apex Court accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner and admitted his writ petition for regular hearing. The case was remanded to ileus court with a direction to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with law.
4. Notices were issued to the respondents to file written statement but the respondents did not take any interest and ultimately on 14-10-2009 their right of defence was closed. Ex parte arguments were heard. Ch. Muhammad Kaleem Afsar, the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his arguments and repeated his version as taken in the writ petition. I don't feel any need to produce his arguments in black and white.
5. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record available with utmost care. The lack of interest by the respondents while hearing the instant writ petition, is highly objectionable and unfortunate for the department and even for the Government. Respondents did not file parawise comments or written statement in the present writ petition. The petitioner has taken this version that he is entitled to be appointed as Naib Tehsildar on the basis of completion of his training. Of course, the petitioner was recommended by Senior Member Board of Revenue on the orders of Revenue Minister of the time for training as a candidate for the post of Naib Tehsildar. The said recommendation is appended with the writ petition as Annexure "D". There were three conditions indicated in the said recommendation. Firstly, the petitioner had to complete the training on his own expenditures. Secondly, the department will not be bound to appoint the petitioner on the completion of the training. Thirdly, the petitioner was bound to qualify the examination conducted by the Public Service Commission. On the aforesaid recommendation, the petitioner was nominated by the Commissioner, Muzaffarabad Division for training vide order dated 31-12-2003 appended as Annexure "E" and finally a certificate regarding completion of the training was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bagh in favour of the petitioner appended as Annexure "F".
6. The record reveals that the petitioner did not compete any examination after completion of the said training. The certificate regarding completion of training was issued on 5-9-2005 and the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 19-9-2006, after one year and fourteen days. The petitioner cannot claim to be appointed on the said post as a right on the basis of departmental training. Government or the Board of Revenue is not bound to provide job on the basis of departmental training. Every candidate for any post who has completed the required training, has to compete the examination by the department or Public Service Commission for that post? The petitioner is not entitled for any relief on the basis of departmental training only The instant writ petition has also been filed after a considerable delay, so :the petition is not maintainable as well and hit by the doctrine of lathes.
' Having in view the abovementioned circumstances, the instant writ petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.