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 vide 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 Shehzad 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 Shehzad 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 para-wise 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 this 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 para-wise 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 [Writ petition for extension in ad hoc appointment was dismissed being not maintainable].
For the Petitioner: Raja Raza Ali Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sardar Abdus Sami Khan, Advocate.
MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J. - The above- captioned writ petition was filed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, through which the following prayer was made:- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that by allowing this petition appropriate writ may kindly be issued to the following effect:-
5. Prohibiting the respondents to discontinue the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner until and unless the post held by the petitioner is filled on regular basis after selection on merit under law/rules.
(ii) Directing the respondents to approve the proposal of extension of ad hoc appointment contained in the summary dated 05.01.2011 moved by Secretary Local Govt. Board.
Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled to may also graciously be granted alongwith the costs".
2. Petitioner stated in the petition that he was appointed as Chief Officer B-17 in the Local Govt.
Department on ad hoc basis vide order No. 4723-29, dated 17.07.2009. Thereafter, extensions were made regarding his ad hoc appointment. The process for permanent appointment against the said post could not be initiated, so, Secretary Local Govt. Board has moved a summary for further extension of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner but 2012 Tahir Mehmood V. Azad Govt, of AJK (Munir Ahmed Chaudhry, J.) the respondents are bent upon to terminate the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner to fill up the aforesaid post for political consideration. The petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the manner mentioned above.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent No. 4 submitted parawise comments and stated that no proposal for termination of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was under consideration. Petitioner has got no locus standi to file this writ petition on the basis of ad hoc appointment. Respondent No. 4 prayed to dismiss the writ petition alongwith the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner.
4. Arguments were heard. The learned Counsel for the parties advanced their arguments and only repeated their versions taken in the pleadings, which require no need to produce their arguments in black and white.
5. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record available minutely. It has been admitted through-the record that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. It has been mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner that the appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and for six months and competent authority can terminate this ad hoc appointment without issuing any notice at any time. The same conditions are mentioned in all of the orders regarding the extension of the basic order of ad hoc appointment creates no right and such like officer does not come in the ambit of a civil servant. So, petitioner has got no locus standi to file a writ petition on the basis of his ad hoc appointment.
Having in view the circumstances indicated above, this writ petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.