1. ' SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.--- This writ petition has been filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974.
2. The precise facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the father of the petitioner Muhammad Jamil was working as Junior Clerk in the Forest Department and died during service on 15-4-2006 due to heart attack. It is alleged that in the light of Notification dated 26-5-2003, the respondents are bound to adjust the son and daughters of those Governments Servants who died during service. The petitioner submitted that his mother approached the concerned authorities to adjust her son or daughter but till now, the respondents did not act upon the request made by his mother. It is further stated that the respondents adjusted one Junaid Maqbool son of Kh.
3. Muhammad Maqbool deceased in the light of above said Notification and discriminated the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that the respondents made adjustment of someone against the available post of Forester by depriving the petitioner from his legitimate right. The petitioner also submitted that the respondents are under legal obligation to adjust him in the light of prevailing law as they adjusted the other legal heirs of deceased government servants. The petitioner prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to adjust him being the legal heir of deceased, Muhammad Jameel.
4. ' This writ petition was admitted for regular hearing vide order 2-7-2010 and the respondents were directed to file written statement, who have filed the same.
5. ' Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed Janjua, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the facts and grounds taken in the petition, argued the case at length and requested for direction to respondent to adjust the petitioner in light of Notification No,S&GAD/R-4(347)99 dated 26-5-2003, which is on file as annexure "B/2". The learned counsel, during the course of arguments drew the attention of the Court to annexure "D/1", another office memorandum No,FDR/587/2004 dated 12-9-2006 and submitted that the respondents are duty bound under law to appoint the petitioner on two year contract service without advertisement. The learned counsel further submitted that document regarding the qualification, age etc. Are annexed with the petition and supported by an affidavit.
6. According to him, the department is avoiding the rightful adjustment of the petitioner for two years contract service as stipulated in the above referred notification and has advertised 9 posts in a Newspaper dated 5-2-2010, "Annexure "D"), which is illegal and without lawful authority. The learned counsel further agitated that in the light of advertisement published by the respondent, the petitioner was also eligible for adjustment but up-till now, the respondent are avoiding his adjustment/two years contract service.
7. ' The respondents filed objections on 9-3-2011, wherein they have explained the present position of vacancies in the category of sons of employees. It is stated that after calculation of quota, vacancies of the said quota accounts to 20 posts, whereas, 22 persons have already been adjusted against the said quota, hence, the petitioner cannot be adjusted. It is further averred that the petitioner was under age at the time of death of his fattier, therefore, he could not be accommodated. The respondents claimed that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and prayed for dismissal of the instant petition with an undertaking in preliminary objections para "D" of the objections in the following words:--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' However, the respondents have not raised any plea regarding the notification dated 12-9-2006, regarding the assistance package to the Govt. Employees who die during service.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given due thought to the record of the case as well as objections and written arguments filed by the respondents.
9. ' At the very outset, it is pertinent to point out that the objections filed by the respondent are not supported by any affidavit nor there is any supporting document. They have also not filed any counter affidavit in rebuttal of the stand of the petitioner but it is surprising to mention that during the perusal of the case record, it reveals that annexure "D/1", at page 13 of the paper book is present but nothing is mentioned about this document (AJ&K Govt. Finance Department Office Memorandum/notification dated 12-6-2006 the assistance package to the Govt. Employees in grade 1 to 15 who die during service.) in any para of petition i,e, paras 1 to 8 and grounds of petition; A to D or in prayer clause. I have also gone through the contents of title page/index of the petition, where, there is no mention of the said document' (annexure "D/1) rather in the index, page No,13 is marked for the affidavit, which suggests that the same has been tagged/pushed in the file after filing of the petition. To further elucidate the matter, it transpires from the record that the father of the petitioner, Muhammad Jameel was died on 15-4-2006 and the said memorandum was issued on 12-9-2006 without any retrospective effect. This is very unfortunate state of affairs. Therefore, the Office is directed to maintain and protect the judicial record and be careful in future.
10. ' While going through the record of the case, it transpires, that the documents annexed with the petition i,e, A, A/1, A/2, B, D/I, B/2, C&D total 8 in numbers are unattested photo copies which cannot be considered for passing a judicial order, he hence in my opinion petition cannot be accepted.
11. So far, as relief sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, in light of memorandum dated) 12-9-2006 is concerned, suffice to say that no relief can be granted to the petitioner because the document relied upon by the petitioner is not a part of the petition nor anything has been mentioned about the said document in the text or prayer clause of the petition. Moreover, the mentioned office memorandum/notification has not been given any retrospective effect, thus, the petitioner's case does not come within the purview of this assistance package.
12. ' That in the circumstances stated above, it can safely be said that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. The above view of mine finds support from the following cases:---
(1) Subedar (R) Behram Khan v. Custodian Evacuee Property and 5 others [2000 YLR 2326].
(2) Mehmood Akhtar Kiani v. AJK Government and others [1998 SCR 310].
(3) AJ&K Government and others v. Abdul Ghaffar Butt [1999 PLC (C.S.) 1203].
13. In the 1st case, it was held by the apex Court that a photo state copy, being inadmissible in evidence cannot be relied upon, whereas in the 2nd case it was observed that it hardly needs any argument that a photostate copy cannot be read in evidence.
14. ' In the 3rd precedent, their Lordships in the apex Court pleased to observe that it was the appellant, who filed the writ petition in the High Court and it has been repeatedly held by this Court that a person who seeks relief by invoking writ jurisdiction, must come with clean hands.
15. ' It is also noted that though the respondent have not filed counter affidavit or any document in support of their objections and it is settled law as laid down in Muhammad Sharif Khan's case, [1993 SCR 88] that the affidavit is considered sufficient in a writ petition as basic proof, if not rebutted by cogent evidence it becomes conclusive proof, but in the instant case, the petitioner has relied upon the annexed documents, which are unattested Photostat copies hence, non-filing of the counter affidavit by the respondent may not be helpful to the petitioner, because the petitioner has to establish his case at his own strength.
16. ' In view of what has been discussed above, finding no force in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.