' MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J.--- The captioned appeal with the leave of the Court arises out of the judgment of the High Court dated 9th December, 2009, whereby Writ Petitions Nos.93 of 2006 and 185 of 2006 have been accepted. The appointment orders of present appellants have been declared illegal and official respondents are directed to conduct test and interview of the candidates afresh in the light of criteria issued by the Inspector General of Police on 23rd December, 2005.
2. Necessary facts for the disposal of instant appeal are that fourteen vacancies of Junior Clerks were lying vacant in the Police Department. The department advertised the same through national newspapers on 23rd September, 2005, whereby applications were to be submitted before 17th October, 2005. According to district-wise quota, two vacant posts fell in the quota of District Muzaffarabad, two posts in the quota of District Neelum, one post in the quota of District Bagh, one post in the quota of District Rawalakot, one post in the quota of District Sudhnooti, one post in the quota of District Kotli, one post in the quota of District Mirpur, one post in the quota of District Bhimber, two posts were reserved for refugees of 1947 settled in Pakistan and one post was reserved for refugees who migrated after 1989. In response to advertisement, several candidates including the appellants and real respondents applied and participated in the typing test, written test and interview. In the result of test and interview conducted by the Committee, the appellants were appointed as Junior Clerks against their respective quota.
3. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 also applied against the posts reserved for District Muzaffarabad and participated in test and interview but could not attain the merit position, hence were not appointed against the vacant posts reserved for District Muzaffarabad. Both of them filed separate writ petitions in the High Court, whereby they challenged the appointment orders of the appellants herein. In their writ petitions they claimed that they have got superior merit as compared to appellant No,1, Ehsan-ur-Rehman. Moreover Arshad Ali Khan prayed for declaring the appointment of present appellants as illegal. He also prayed for a direction to respondents that they shall rectify the merit list, place him at serial No,1 of the merit list and after counting the marks obtained by him in the field of typing as well as his experience and good reputation earned by him during his ad hoc service as Junior Clerk, issue his appointment order against the vacancy of Junior Clerk against the quota of District Muzaffarabad. He also prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto against the non-petitioners.
4. Wajid Hussain, respondent No,2 herein, who is serving as ad hoc Junior Clerk, prayed that the appointment of respondent, Ehsan-urRehman, may kindly be declared illegal. He requested for direction to respondents to place him at serial No,1 of merit list after counting the marks obtained by him in the field of typing and computer skills, considering his experience and good reputation earned by him during his ad hoc service as Junior Clerk, officiating Head Clerk and Assistant Record Keeper, issue his appointment order against the vacancy of Junior Clerk against the quota of District Muzaffarabad. He further prayed that a restraint order be issued to official respondents that they shall not act upon the merit list prepared in the result of test and interview and shall not issue appointment order of appellant No,1 herein.
5. After necessary proceedings, a learned single Judge in the High Court accepted both the writ petitions through a consolidated judgment delivered on 9th December, 2009, set aside the selection process on the ground that instead of nominated members of Selection Committee, two other persons participated in the proceedings as such the whole proceedings of test and interview were illegal. The Selection Committee illegally has not included the marks of typing test in the result; therefore, the result is materially affected. The High Court ordered for fresh test and interview of the candidates applied in response to advertisement.
6. Mr. Raza Ali Khan, the learned counsel for the appellants, argued that the judgment of the High Court is not maintainable. It is against the law. The respondents who were serving as Junior Clerks on ad hoc basis in the Police Department, in response to advertisement applied for the posts against the quota of District Muzaffarabad. They participated in the typing test, written test and interview, but could not attain the merit position. Appellants Nos.1 and 4 were duly appointed against the quota reserved for District Muzaffarabad. After participating in the test and interview the respondents are estopped from challenging the appointment orders and selection process of the appellants. After participating in the whole process they have acquiesced and cannot challenge the same. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel that the respondents hail from District Muzaffarabad. They can only challenge the appointment orders of appellants belonging to District Muzaffarabad. They are not aggrieved from the appointment orders of those candidates who belong to other districts. Their writ petitions against the candidates of other districts were liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. The learned counsel further argued that in the writ petitions, both the respondents have prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto against the appellants. The respondents cannot file writ of quo warranto on the ground that they have sought relief for them and prayed for their own appointment. Any person can file a writ of quo warranto, but a person who seeks relief for himself and prays for his appointment cannot file writ of quo warranto. The learned counsel further argued that the learned Judge in the High Court has misinterpreted the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police on 23rd December, 2005 and the pro forma issued for calculation of the result. He contended that the learned Judge in the High Court has held that the marks of typing test have to be included in the final result, but this finding is against the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police. It is categorically laid down in the instructions that prior to issuance of written test, a typing test shall be conducted and only those candidates, who pass the typing test, will be eligible to participate in the written test. The purpose of typing test was only to qualify for participating in the test and interview. Similarly in column No,8 of the pro forma, there is only word written "result typing", while in other columns Nos.9 and 10 there is word "marks obtained". The learned counsel submitted that the finding of the High Court on the strength of the case reported as Aziz Ahmed v. Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Gujranwala [1997 PLC (C.S.) 356] is incorrect. He argued that in the referred case the appointments in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Gujranwala were made on the orders of Revenue Commissioner, while the Calendar of Education Board provided that the appointments be made by the Chairman on the recommendations of Selection Committee of the Education Board. The learned counsel requested for acceptance of appeal.
7. While controverting the arguments, Mr. Muzaffar Ali Zafar, the learned Additional Advocate- General, argued that the judgment of the High Court is not maintainable. A Selection Committee was duly constituted. Due to earthquake, extraordinary circumstances existed in Muzaffarabad. The Registrar C.P.O. Could not participate due to ill health and the Head Clerk joined the proceedings for the purpose of tabulating the result, therefore, no illegality has been committed by the department. He further argued that in the pro forma for tabulating the result, in column No,8, there is no mention of words "marks obtained" in typing. The only word used is "result of typing". When it is read with the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police, it becomes clear that only those persons were eligiwe to participate in the written test who could qualify the typing test. The purpose of typing test was not to include its marks, but its purpose was only to determine whether in the typing test an.y candidate has passed or failed and only those candidates were eligible to participate in written test who could qualify the typing test.
8. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Janjua, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, argued that the judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal. Committee for conducting test and interview was duly constituted. Two members of the Committee were not present. In their absence two aliens participated in the proceedings. Due to their participation the result was materially affected and the result prepared by such Committee had no legal value. He contended that the law is settled that if a thing is to be done in a particular way, it has to be done in that way or not at all. He further argued that in the pro forma, in column No,8, the marks of typing were not included. Had the marks of typing been included, respondents No,1 would have been at No,1 in the merit against the seat of District Muzaffarabad and he was to be appointed as such. He further argued that in the typing test he was at No,1 position in the whole District Muzaffarabad. The typing marks have not been included in the result with mala fide intention.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost care. We have also perused the police file, which was summoned after the conclusion of arguments and is presented by Assistant Inspector General (Legal). It is evident from the record that in response to advertisement issued by the Police Department, the appellants, real respondents and some others appeared in the test and interview conducted for the posts of Junior Clerks. Appellants Nos.1, 4 and real respondents belong to District Muzaffarabad. In the result of test and interview, a merit list was prepared. Appellants Nos.1 and 4 were appointed against the quota of District Muzaffarabad. Both the real respondents challenged the appointment orders of the appellants, but they specifically challenged the appointment of appellant No,
1. Arshad Ali Khan, who was already serving as ad hoc Junior Clerk in the Police Department, was appointed with the condition that the post shall be advertised and he may participate in the test and interview. He specifically prayed for placing him at serial No,1 of seniority list prepared for District Muzaffarabad and sought a direction that he may be appointed as Junior Clerk against the quota of District Muzaffarabad. Wajid Hussain in his writ petition prayed for declaring appointment order of respondent No,4, Ehsan-ur-Rehman, as illegal.
He challenged the result and sought a direction for his appointment against the quota of District Muzaffarabad. His writ petition is virtually against appellant No,1 herein.
10. Wajid Hussain has filed writ of certiorari. He only challenged the appointment order of appellant No,1, prayed for setting aside his appointment order and sought a direction for his appointment against the said post reserved for District Muzaffarabad. Arshad Ali Khan requested for setting aside the appointment orders of all the appellants herein and sought his appointment against one seat reserved for District Muzaffarabad. A perusal of both the writ petitions shows that the petitioners have taken contradictory stands in the writ petitions. At one side they have challenged whole proceedings of interview conducted by the Selection Committee on the ground that two persons who were not members of Committee participated in the interview proceedings, therefore, result prepared by the said Committee was illegal one, while on the other side, they have prayed that the merit list prepared by the said Committee be corrected. They have sought a direction for entering at serial No,1 in the merit list prepared for Muzaffarabad and appointment in the result of corrected merit list.
11. It may be observed that one cannot blow both hot and cold in one breath. Both the petitioners in the High Court on the one hand challenged the proceedings of Selection Committee and on the other hand they prayed that the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee be corrected and they be appointed in the result of said corrected merit list. The petitioners cannot take contradictory stands in the writ petitions. Either they have to challenge the proceedings of Selection Committee on the ground that it was not legally constituted or they can pray for correction of merit list. Contradictory stands cannot be taken by a party in writ petition. This view finds support from a case reported as Muhammad Aftab Khan v. District Education Officer and 2 others [2001 PLC (C.S.) 28] wherein it was observed as under:- ".... When the appellant participated in the proceedings taken in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court and tailed to obtain his appointment, he could not be allowed to challenge the impugned judgment of the High Court which was passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction. A party cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath."
' In another case titled Kh. Manzoor Qadir v. Azad Government and others 12010 SCR 215] it was held as under:-- ....Law does not allow any person to blow hot and cold in one breath that PC-1 which favours the appellant is valid and revised PC-1 is invalid because it is not beneficial for him"
12. The petitioners in their writ petitions have claimed different reliefs. Firstly that the proceedings of Selection Committee be declared illegal and as a result the appointment orders of appellants be set aside; secondly the merit list prepared by Selection Committee be corrected and they be placed at serial No,1 in the merit list; thirdly in the result of corrected merit list their appointment orders be issued against the seat reserved for District Muzaffarabad; and fourthly a writ of quo warranto be issued against the respondents that under what authority of law they are holding the posts. They sought relief by way of writ of certiorari for cancellation of appointment orders of appellants and sought appointment against one post reserved for District Muzaffarabad. They also prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto. No doubt an aggrieved person may seek a relief by way of writ of certiorari. It is also a settled law that any person can file a writ of quo warranto, but a person cannot seek contradictory reliefs at one time. The petitioners, if claimed to be aggrieved, can only file writ petition against appellants Nos.1 and 4, who are appointed against the quota of District Muzaffarabad because according to their own claim they prayed for setting aside the appointment order of appellant No,1 and sought their own appointment against the said post reserved for District Muzaffarabad. They cannot be appointed against the seats reserved for the quota of other Districts; therefore, they cannot be termed as aggrieved persons against the appellants belonging to other Districts. The writ petitions to the extent of other appellants except appellants Nos.1 and 4 herein were not maintainable and were liable to be dismissed on this ground. They have also prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto. No doubt it is not necessary to be an aggrieved person to file a writ of quo warranto. Any State Subject can file a writ of quo warranto requiring a person functioning in connection with the affairs of the State or Government that under what authority of law he is holding the office, but a person who seeks a relief for himself cannot file writ of quo warranto. An identical matter came under consideration of this Court in a case titled Raja Muhammad Azad Khan v. Vice Chancellor and another [1999 SCR 270] wherein it was observed as under:--- "The difference between the writ of certiorari/mandamus and a writ of quo warranto is that in the former an appellant may seek a relief for himself while in the latter writ a relater does not seek any relief for himself. That is the reason why it is not a condition precedent for filing a writ of quo warranto that the appellant should be an aggrieved person. In quo warranto appellant cannot seek any relief for himself and he only has to challenge the authority under which a respondent is holding a public office."
' In another case titled Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v. Secretary Forest/Tourism AJ&K and others [1999 MLD 1862] it was held as under:--- "Another observation made in Raja Muhammad Azad's case seems to be relevant here. We have already noted that the appellant in that case challenged the authority of a successor to hold the post of Registrar which tended to show that the aforementioned appointee was aggrieved by his transfer but this was not treated as hindrance in the way of filing a writ of quo warranto. In the present case the position is the same. Since a writ of quo warranto can be filed by any person, it follows that even an aggrieved person can file a writ of quo warranto. The only condition is that the petitioner in a writ of quo warranto cannot get any relief for himself."
' Since the petitioners sought relief for themselves, they were not entitled to file writ of quo- warranto. His writ petition to the extent of quowarranto was not maintainable.
13. Another argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that after participating in the test and interview the petitioners have acquiesced and they are estopped by their conduct to challenge the proceedings of the Selection Committee by way of writ petitions is worth consideration. Both the petitioners qualified the typing test and after qualifying the same, they participated in the written test and also appeared in the interview. They could not attain the required merit position and were put in lower position. Appellants Nos.1 and 4 were at Nos.1 and 2 in the merit list prepared for District Muzaffarabad. They were duly appointed. After participating in the test and interview the petitioners have acquiesced and by their conduct they are estopped from challenging the proceedings of Selection Committee. The matter of acquiescence and estoppel has since long been settled by this Court in different cases. It has been held by this Court in a number of cases that if a person participates in the proceedings and remains unsuccessful in getting the desired result, later on he cannot turn round and challenge the proceedings on the ground that the same were not conducted by the legally constituted body. In a case titled Malik Khalid Mahmood v. Abdul Majid Butt and 4 others [1997 MLD 2921] it was held as under:--- "6. It was then argued by Raja Hassan Akhtar that when the allotment order in favour of respondent No,1 was issued the relevant rules authorizing the allotment of plot had not yet been enforced. This point was argued before the High Court and was repelled by placing reliance on a notification issued on 25th of February, 1988 whereby rules applicable to Mirpur Development Authority in respect of encroachments of land were made applicable to Municipal Committee Dadyal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the view taken by the High Court was not correct. We need not decide this question because it is well settled that the appellant is estopped from raising this point. Admittedly the appellant himself applied on the prescribed form to the Municipal Committee that his possession over the disputed piece of land may be regularized in his favour. After having been unsuccessful in his attempt to secure a favourable order he cannot be allowed to turn round to say that the functionaries of the Municipal Committee did not have the authority to regularize encroachments."
' In another case reported as Abdul Qadir v. Abdul Karim and 4 others [1999 PLC (C.S.) 947] while dealing with the proposition of acquiescence and estoppel it was observed as under: "... We may add that acquiescence and estoppel are two recognized grounds in presence of which jurisdiction based on equity cannot be exercised in favour of a litigant. A common example may be found in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court which is equitable in nature and no relief is granted to a litigant if he himself is instrumental in the making of an order or if he acquiesces in it. He is not allowed to turn round and challenge it. Equitable jurisdiction cannot also be exercised in favour of a litigant with objectionable conduct. If any authority is needed on this point we may refer to the judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Manzoor and others [1993 SCR 92] and the case titled Ghulam Mustafa v. Azad Government and 2 others [1996 MLD 355]."
' In another case titled Sardar Zaheer Ahmed Khan and another v. Azad Government and 4 others [2005 SCR 89] it was observed as under:- "A perusal of the judgment of the High Court as well as the report of the Commission reveals that the petitioners have participated and duly assisted the Commission of Inquiry and they have all along been with the Commission during inquiry. They have challenged the notification of appointment of Commission of Inquiry after the report was submitted by the Commission and when they found it against them. A person, who duly participated in an inquiry and acquiesced to the jurisdiction, is estopped from calling in question the proceedings and the results thereof."
' In the instant case after participating in the interview, the writ petitioners could not attain required merit position. They have acquiesced and are estopped from challenging the proceedings of Selection Committee. The writ petitions were liable to be dismissed on this ground.
14. The result of above discussion is that this appeal is accepted.
' The judgment of the High Court dated 9th December, 2009 is set aside. IC Writ Petitions Nos.93 of 2006 and 185 of 2006 are dismissed with no order as to costs.