' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.--- The petitioner, the Subedar Major Hamayun Khan in Malakand Levies Force, District Malakand, being on extension given by District Coordination Officer/ Commandant Malakand Levies, vide office order dated 25-4-2012 w,e,f, 1-6-2012 to 31-5-2013 through his Writ Petition No,252 of 2012 has questioned the request for assignment of charge to Subedar Major Gul Roz Khan, Regimental No, 3356, Levies Force, the respondent No,5, whereas Subedar Gul Roz Khan through his separate connected Writ Petition No, 263 of 2012 has questioned the order of extension in favour of Subedar Major Muhammad Hamayoon Khan, vide order dated 25-4-2012, ibid.
2. This single judgment in Writ Petition No,252 of 2012 will also dispose of connected Writ Petition No,263 of 2012.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the request for assignment of charge to Subedar Gul Roaz, the respondent No,5, from Chief Coordinator of Prime Minister Secretariat is unlawful, without lawful authority and having no adverse effect upon his rights. He further contended that the extension granted in favour of petitioner is within the parameter of the relevant rules regarding the service of the Malakand Levies. The learned counsel further argued that the connected writ petition is not maintainable.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No,5, the petitioner of connected writ petition, argued that under the law no extension can be granted and the impugned order of extension of service of the petitioner is, thus, against the law and cannot be maintained as it blocks the way of the next to be promoted and the criteria for promotion on the question of best to best has also not been recommended by the apex Court of the country. He further argued that the discretion of extension exercised by the District Coordination Officer/Commandant Levies is not based on valid reason and the Commandant levies has usurped the powers to be exercised by the department promotion committee in this regard and submitted that the extension order is, thus, against the law, The learned counsel while arguing regarding the maintainability of his writ petition also relied upon the judgment in Writ Petition No,196 of 2005 titled Dilawar Khan, subedar major Malakand Levies v. Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P, Home and Tribal Affairs Deptt. Peshawar and two others and Writ Petition No,451 of 2005, titled Subedar Noor Karam v. Government of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry Safron, Islamabad and three others. He placed reliance on Suo Motu Case No,24 of 2010 etc., PLD 2011 SC 277 and Secretary Revenue Division, CBR/Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad. v. Gul Muhammad and others 2011 SCM R 295.
5. As against that, learned A.A.-G. While controverting the arguments of both the learned counsel, submitted that the Writ Petition bearing No,252 of 2011 is not maintainable being premature as only request was made by the Chief Coordinator and no adverse order detrimental to the rights of the petitioner was passed. While submitting the reply of the arguments of respondent No,5 Subedar Gul Roz Khan, he submitted that the extension order so passed by the Commandant Malakand Levies is within his competence under Rule 2(iii) of the Rules of 1962 regulating the Services of the Malakand and Dir Levies. He further argued by placing reliance on the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No,152 of 2011 dated 13-6-2012 submitted that the rules governing the services of Malakand and Dir Levies are not the statutory rules, so, the respondent No,5, the petitioner in connected writ petition, cannot file his writ petition. His arguments were that the judgment dated 24-3-2005 in Writ Petition bearing No,196 of 2005 and judgment dated 9-4-2005 in Writ Petition No,451 of 2005 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and has wrongly been relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No,5.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners and A.A.-G. For the respondents were heard and record of the case was perused.
7. Perusal of the record would reveal that, no doubt, no such order detrimental to the rights and interest of the petitioner namely Subedar Major Hamayoon Khan was passed by any of the authorities. The impugned in the writ petition is simply a request made by the Chief Coordinator of Prime Minster Secretariat, which cannot be termed as an order affecting the right of the petitioner.
So, unless any order against the interest of the petitioner is passed, he would have no locus standi to file a writ petition. Hence, his writ petition being premature is hereby dismissed.
Now comes the question of connected writ petition. Rules 2 and 3 of Dir and Malakand Levies Rules of 1962 are reproduced for ready reference.
2. All future promotion:----
(i) To Jamadars will be for 5 years only.
(ii) To Subedar will be for 3 years only except in special cases in which the local Administration may permit a Subedar to exceed this limit.
2012] Muhammad Hamayoon Khan v. D.C.0./Commandant Levies 1997
(iii) To Subedar Major will be for 4 years only extendable by further one year by Local Administration; provided they are not liable to retire earlier in accordance with the provisions of rule 3 below.
(i) All sopys will retire after 18 years service.
(ii) All non-Commissioned Officers will be retired after 25 years service.
(iii) All others will retire on attaining the age of 50 years or on completion of 30 years service, whichever is earlier.
(iv) No extension of service will be granted.
' A look at the above quoted rules would reveal that an extension for a period of one year can be made under the provisions of sub-rule (iii) of Rule 2 subject to rule 3(iii), ibid. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, in the circumstances, would not be applicable.
The same is distinguishable. In Writ Petition No,196 of 2005, supra, the concerned party had attained the age of superannuation, he was granted extension which according to the above said rules was not permissible whereas in Writ Petition No, 451 of 2005, supra, the respondent therein, had also completed 29 years of service as such was not eligible for further promotion as Subedar Major, so such extension was turned down by this court. The learned counsel for respondent was unable to satisfy us regarding his submission that extension in service cannot be granted under the rules, ibid. Besides the above all, the rules referred to above are not the statutory rules governing the services of the parties, so, the writ petition, in the circumstances, was also not maintainable. Reference in this regard can be made to judgments rendered by the apex court in many cases like Executive Council, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad, through Chairman and another v. M. Tufail Hashmi 2010 SCM R 1484 Muhammad Mubeenus-Salam and 24 others v.
Federation of Pakistan through Secy. M/o Defence Government of Pakistan and others 2010 SCM R 1904 and Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through General Manager and another v.
Muhammad Zahid and 29 others 2010 SCM R 253.
' So, in this view of the matter, the connected writ petition too, being meritless, deserves outright dismissal.
' Both the writ petitions are dismissed as such.