' MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J.--- The appellant filed two appeals in the Service Tribunal of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, whereby she challenged the seniority list of Lecturers issued on 6th June, 2010, notified on 21st December, 2010, alleging therein, that after passing the Public Service Commission Examination, she was appointed as Lecturer Islamiat on 8th September, 2001, respondents Nos.1 to 4, secretly issued a seniority list on 6th June, 2010 and published it on 21st December, 2010. It was alleged that date of appointment of respondents Nos.5 to 14 is 11th September, 2002, 5th, August, 2002, 22nd May, 2002, 2nd May, 2002, 27th August, 2002, 14th March, 2002, 22nd April, 2002, 10th May, 2002, 10th August, 2002 and 28th May, 2002. Admittedly, they are junior to her but respondents Nos.1 to 4 with mala fide intention have declared them as senior to her. She claimed that respondents Nos.15 to 22 were appointed as Lecturer along with her on the same date through the same order. Under Rule 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and, Conditions of Service), Rules, 1977, the persons appointed by one order, the senior in age shall be senior in service but respondents Nos.1 to 4 with mala fide intention have declared them as senior in the seniority list. She relied upon the case reported as Kh. Muhammad Ahsan v. Manzoor All Khokhar and another (1999 SCR 163). She also sought condonation of delay on the ground that before publication of seniority list she had no knowledge about issuance of the same. After necessary proceedings the Service Tribunal dismissed both the appeals.
2. Mr. Manzoor Hussain Raja, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the judgment of the Service Tribunal is against law and the record. The appellant was appointed as Lecturer on 8th September, 2001, while respondents Nos.5 to 14 were appointed as Lecturers in the years 2002, 2003 and 2004, much latter than the appellant. No order of merit was determined by the Public Service Commission. The seniority shall be calculated from the date of joining. The learned counsel argued that although respondents Nos.5 to 14 were selected in the result of different selections along with the appellant but they could not attain the merit position and were not recommended by the Public Service Commission. Along with the appellant their names were not entered in the handout issued by the Public Service Commission. The learned counsel referred to Rule 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1977 and argued that seniority of a person appointed by initial recruitment shall be determined in the order of merit. The Public Service Commission issued order of merit in year, 2007 and respondents Nos.5 to 14 were shown senior in the order of merit. They were appointed later than the appellant. The order of merit assigned to them in year 2009, is not relevant. The learned counsel relied upon the cases reported as Kh. Muhammad Ahsan v. Manzoor All Khokhar and another (2001 PLC (C.S.) 243) and Khurshid-ul-Hassan Bazmi v. Azad Government and others (Civil Appeal No,135 of 2009, decided on 15th January, 2011). The learned counsel argued that the Service Tribunal has incorrectly dismissed the appeal being time-barred. The seniority list was issued by the Department on 6th June, 2010 and was published on 31st December, 2010. The date of communication is 31st December, 2010, when the list was published, in the official gazette. The learned counsel submitted that officially the seniority list was not communicated to the appellant.
The official respondents claimed in the written statement that list was communicated to the Principal. The communication of list to the Principal is not a proper communication to the appellant. He referred to the cases reported as Public Health Engineering Division and others v.
Aurangzeb Khan (2008 SCR 590), Tasneem Yaseen v. Azad Government and 11 others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 850; Muhammad Riaz Khan v. Inspector-General of Police and 19 others (2010 SCR 131) and Bashir Ahmed v. Khurshid-ul-Haq and another (1983 PLC (C.S.) 652). The learned counsel argued that under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1975, the limitation for filing the appeal shall start from the date of communication. The appellant has filed an affidavit to the effect that the list was communicated on 31st December, 2010. The learned counsel further argued that he filed a certification issued by the Government Printing Press, that the notification has not been published in the official gazette. It cannot be said that the appellant had the knowledge. He referred to the cases reported as Nazar Ahmed Khan v. Syed Sabir Hussain Naqvi and 3 others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 303 and Muhammad Ryas Khan and 6 others v. Sardar Muhammad Hafeez Khan and 3 others (2001 PLC (C.S.) 445).
3. While controverting the arguments, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for respondent No,20, submitted that judgment of the Service Tribunal is perfectly legal. Under Rule 8(1)(a) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service)
Rules, 1977, the seniority has to be determined in case of persons appointed by initial recruitment in accordance with the order of merit assigned by the Selection Authority. The Selection Authority determined the order of merit in which the appellant falls at serial No,213 and respondents are admittedly senior to her, therefore, there is no illegality in the judgment of the Service Tribunal. The learned counsel argued that the appellant and respondents were selected in one selection for which test and interview were conducted at different dates. The learned counsel relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court delivered in case titled Muhammad Nazir Mughal v. Abdul Akbar Tahir and others (Civil Appeal No,82 of 2007, decided on 15-6-2011 and Nadir Shah, S.D.O., Minor Canal Cell, Irrigation Sub-Division, Dera Murad Jamali and 2 others v. Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Balochistan, Quetta and 7 others (2003 PLC (C.S.) 961). The learned counsel argued that the appeal in the Service Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred it was correctly dismissed on the ground of limitation.
4. Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, Advocate, counsel for respondent No,13, submitted that there are two judgments of this Court in the cases titled Muhammad Nazir Mughal v. Abdul Akbar Tahir and others and Khurshid-ul-Hassan. Bazmi v. Azad Government and others. Muhammad Nazir Mughal's case is applicable in the present case and view expressed in the said case is applicable.
5. Mr. Sherzaman Awan, Advocate, counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3, adopted the arguments of Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, while Raja Amjad Ali Khan, Advocate, counsel for respondents Nos.6 and 18 adopted the arguments of counsel for the appellant and requested for acceptance of appeal.
6. Sardar Karam Dad Khan, Advocate, counsel for respondents Nos.11 and 14 while adopting the arguments of Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan argued that the appeal is time-barred. Respondents Nos. 14 and 15 have filed, an affidavit that they were serving in the same college where the appellant was serving and they were in knowledge of the seniority list and from there knowledge it is proved that the appellant had also the knowledge of seniority list, therefore, the appeal in the Service Tribunal was time-barred. The learned counsel referred to the cases reported as ' Zial Haq and others v. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and others (1991 SCMR 1632) and Fazal Muhammad v. Government of N.-W.F.P. and others (2009 PLC (C.S.) 444).
7. Mr. Dawood Abbasi, Advocate, counsel for respondent No,9 submitted that the selection authority i.e, the Public Service Commission had determined the order of merit wherein the appellant is at serial No,110 while respondent No,9 is at serial No,78. The appellant has not challenged the order of merit assigned by the Public Service Commission in specific terms, therefore, no relief can be granted to her.
8. While drafting the judgment we come through the copy of seniority list issued on 6th June, 2010.
The copy annexed with Appeal No,6 is attested by the Advocate-General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. A notice was issued to the counsel for the parties to argue the case on the point that under Rule 7(e) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure), Rules, 1976, every memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by the copy of the order of the competent authority against which the appeal is preferred. The photocopy annexed with the appeal in the Service Tribunal is not a certified true copy. It has been attested by the Advocate-General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir who is not a concerned authority. The counsel for the appellants failed to furnish any explanation and only argued that objection was not raised on the maintainability of appeal. The counsel for the respondents submitted that copy of the order of competent authority means certified true copy.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant through Appeal No,6 of 2011 has challenged the seniority list _issued on 6th June, 2010 bearing No, AIL. of/2010(15)27/ A {{URDU TEXT}} 19239-284 oil 21-12-2010 in the Service Tribunal. Along with the memorandum of appeal in the Service Tribunal, the appellant annexed the copy of seniority list as annexure "A". A perusal of annexure "A" reveals that it is a photocopy of seniority list issued on 6th June, 2010 which has been attested by the Advocate-General, Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
10. Under section 10 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, the Government may, by notification in the official gazette make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act and Government through notification issued in February, 1977 made the rules namely the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1976. Rule 7(e) is the relevant rule. The same is reproduced as under:--- "7. Every Memorandum of appeal shall; (a)
(b) ...............................................................
(c) ..................................................
(d) ..................................................
(e) be accompanied by:
(i) a copy of the order of the competent authority against which the appeal is preferred; and
(ii) copies of rules, orders and other documents on which the appellant proposes to rely in support of his claim;"
(0 ........................................................................
(g) ..................................................
(h) ..................................................
' A bare reading of the same shows that memorandum of the appeal shall IA be accompanied by a copy of order. A photocopy of a document is not admissible in evidence.
11. Article 87 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 was amended in 1996. Subsections (2) and (3) were added in the said Article. For proper appreciation we deem it necessary to reproduce the said Article which is as under:--- "87. Certified copies of public documents.
1.
'Azad Jammu and Kashmir Amendment.
' In Article 87, the existing provision shall be renumbered as subsection (1) and thereafter the following new subsections (2) and (3) shall be added:---
(2) Photo state copy of public documents, shall not be admissible unless it has been certified to be the true copy, by the officer concerned who has the custody of the original document.
(3) Official notes and correspondence or copies thereof, being not public documents, shall not be issued and shall not be admissible in any case."
' A perusal of the same shows that photo state copy of public documents shall not be admissible unless it has been certified to be the true copy, by the officer concerned who has the custody of the original document. The statutory provision is unambiguous. The photo state copy of a document is not admissible unless the officer having the custody of original document certifies the same to be true copy. In the presence of clear statutory provisions no other interpretation is permissible. Under Article 8 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, every public officer having the custody of a public document shall give a person on demand on payment of the legal fee, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is true copy of such document or part thereof and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and official title and shall be sealed.
12. The seniority list issued by the Government appended with the appeal in the Service Tribunal and attested by the Advocate-General is not a certified true copy under Article 87(2) and does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 7(e) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure)
Rules, 1976. The copy appended with the memorandum of appeal is not a certified true copy of original seniority list. It is only a photocopy and photocopy is not admissible in evidence.
13. Thus we have reached the conclusion that the appeal filed in the Service Tribunal without appending the certified copy of the order impugned was not competent, it merits dismissal on the sole ground.
14. As we have drawn the conclusion that appeal in the Service Tribunal was incompetently filed in violation of Rule 7(e) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1976 it merits dismissal there is no need to dilate upon the merits of the case.
Since the appeal in the Service Tribunal has been dismissed, resultantly the instant appeal is also dismissed with no order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.