' MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, CJ. --- The appellant filed two appeals in the Service Tribunal of Azad Jammu & 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 No, 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 No, 5 to 14 is with 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 arc junior to her but respondents No, 1 to 4 with mala fide ,intention have declared them as senior to her. She claimed that respondents No, 15 to 22 were appointed as Lecturer alongwith her on the same date through the same order.
Under Rule 8 of the Azad Jammu & 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 No, 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 Ali Khokhar & 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 No, 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 No, 5 to 14 were selected in the result of different selections alongwith the appellant but they could not attain the merit position and were not recommended by the Public Service Commission. Alongwith 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 & 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 No, 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 eported as Kh. Muhammad Ahsan v. Manzoor All Khokhar & another [1999 SCR 163] 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 refered to the cases reported as Public Health Engineering Division and others v.
Aurangzeb Khan [2008 SCR 590], Tasneem Yaseen v. Azad Government & 11 others [2002 SCR 167], Muhammad Riaz Khan v. Inspector General of Police & 19 others [2010 SCR 131] and Bashir Ahmed v.
Khurshid-ul-Haq and another [1983 PLC (CS) 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 three others [2000 SCR 380] and Muhammad Ilyas Khan and 6 others v. Sardar Muhammad Hafeez Khan and three others [2000 SCR 630].
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 & 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 15.06.2011 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 (CS) 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 & 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 No, 2 & 3, adopted the arguments of Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, while Raja Amjad Ali Khan, Advocate, counsel for respondents No, 6 & 18 adopted the arguments of counsel for the appellant and requested for acceptance of appeal.
6. Sardar Karam Dad Khan, Advocate, counsel for respondents No, 11 and 14 while adopting the arguments of Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan argued that the appeal is time-barred. Respondents No, 11 and 14 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 their 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 Zia-ul-Haq and others v. Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad & others [1991 SCMR 1632] and Fazal Muhammad v. Government of N.W.F.P. and others [2009 PLC (CS) 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 Jane, 2010 bearing No,, {{URDU TEXT}} 21.12.2010 in the Service Tribunal. Alongwith 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 & Kashmir.
10.Under Section 10 of the Azad Jammu & 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 & 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;" (g)
(h)
' A bare reading of the same shows that memorandum of the appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of order. A photocopy of a document is not admissible in evidence.
11.Article 87 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 was amended in 1996. Sub-sections (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 & Kashmir Amendment.
' In Article 87, the existing provision shall be renumbered as sub-section (1) and thereafter the following new sub-sections (2) arid (3) shall be added:--- (2)Photo-stat 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-stat 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-stat 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 Qanoon-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 rot a certified true copy under Article 87(2) and does not fulfil the requirement of Rule 7(e) of the Azad Jammu & 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 & 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.