' M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, J.--- The captioned writ petition has been addressed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, whereby following relief is solicited by the petitioner:--- "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that by accepting the writ petition, the impugned order dated 1-1-2012, may kindly be set aside, being issued against law, rules, transfer policy and natural justice. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case may be granted in favour of petitioner."
2.The brief facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Computer Instructor B-17 on contract basis in Girls Degree College Sehnsa Kotli on recommendations of respective selection committee vide order dated 21-10-2007. It is claimed that later on the petitioner was posted as Computer Instructor B-17 in Girls Degree College Kotli vide notification dated 19-9-2009. However, through the impugned order dated 1-1-2012 the petitioner was sent back to her original post in Girls Degree College Sehnsa which order was challenged through the instant writ petition filed before this Court on 7-1-2012.
3. A pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents for filing parawise comments, who filed the same, wherein it is stated that petitioner was appointed on contract basis in Girls Degree College Sehnsa vide order dated 21-10-2007 for one year, therefore, she could not be transferred in any other college due to condition laid down in her order of appointment. It is 'claimed that transfer was obtained by the petitioner vis-a-vis; to Government policy and her appointment order; therefore, she was sent back to her original post, hence, she is not an aggrieved person from the impugned order dated 1-1-20,12. It is averred that according to contract policy promulgated on 29- 7-2006 contract appointment was non-transferable; hence, notification pertaining to posting of the petitioner dated 19-9-2009 was unlawful which cannot be protected in writ jurisdiction.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Raja Muhammad Arif Rathore, Advocate strenuously argued that after posting of the petitioner in Girls Degree College ,Kotli vide notification dated 19-9- 2009 no order could be passed further till completion of at least 3 years period. It is further claimed that the above-mentioned order was issued during the ban imposed by the Government vide notification dated 25-10-2011.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents Messrs Mir Sharafat Hussain and Maqsood Ahmed Sulehria, Advocates while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for one year by the Information Technology Board vide order dated 21-10-2007 which period was expired on 21-10-2008 and no extension whatsoever was brought on record, therefore, the instant writ petition is bad in law. The learned counsel also pressed into service that according to condition No,4 laid down in her appointment order 'dated 21-10-2007, the appointment was non-transferable. However, she obtained her transfer order dated 19-9-2009 vis-a-vis to conditions laid down in her own order of appointment which was rightly taken back through the impugned order dated 1-1-2012.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length I have perused the contents of writ petition and examined the appended record with utmost care.
7. A contemplate perusal of appointment order of the petitioner dated 21-10-2007 reveals that she was appointed as Computer Instructor B-17 on contract basis, in the Project titled "Establishment of Computer Labs in Government Degree Colleges in AJK" vide order dated 21-10-2007. According to condition No,4 of her order, the appointment was non-transferable. A perusal of record reveals that she was posted in Girls Degree College Kotli on 19-9-2009 by violation of her own Appointment order dated 21-10-2007. According to contract policy promulgated on 19-7-2006 contract appointment was non-transferable and in this regard, para (vii) (i) of the above policy is reproduced as under:--- "(vii)(i) Contract appointment shall be post specific and nontransferable, contract employee shall not, under any circumstances, claim any right for transfer from one post to another. ".
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order dated 1-1-2012, whereby the petitioner was posted from Girls Degree College Kotli to Girls Degree College Sehnsa during ban imposed by the Government is misconceived for the reason that the above-mentioned ban pertained to civil servants, while the persons appointed on contract basis are not civil servants.
In this respect para (ii) (iv.) of contract appointment policy dated 29-7-2006 is reproduced as follows:--- "Persons appointed on contract basis are not Civil Servants, therefore, their service matters shall not be governed by the rules framed under the Civil Servants Act, 1976. Their appointment shall be strictly regulated by the terms and conditions of their contract."
9. As the petitioner obtained her posting from Girls Degree College Sehnsa to Girls Degree College Kotli vide notification dated 19-9-2009 in violation of contract appointment policy dated 29-7-2006 and accepted conditions of her appointment order dated 21-10-2007, therefore, an unlawful order cannot be protected through writ jurisdiction. The instant point came under consideration before the apex Court in the case titled "Major Muhammad Aftab Ahmed (Rtd.) v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government" 1993 SCR 307(sic) and at page 312 of the report it was observed as under:--- "(iii) Even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the Prime Minister had made the order for the appointment of the appellant to the post of Superintendent of Police still it cannot be given effect to or enforced by way of issuing writ directing the respondents to issue the order of his appointment to the said Post as it is a settled law that the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to direct a person to give effect to an unlawful order of any authority even though it is competent authority to pass such an order in a lawful manner. Since, as said earlier, the appointment of the appellant could not be made to the post of Superintendent of Police under the rules the orders of the Prime Minister claimed by the appellant to be the orders of his appointment to the said post being violative of the relevant rules were unlawful and consequently were not enforceable by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction which is discretionary in nature and its exercise is always refused where the ends of justice and facts of the case do no justify and call for to do so. In view of above, finding no substance in the instant petition, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. HBT/22/H.C.
(AJ&K) .