' MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, CJ. The above titled appeal by leave of the Court arises out of the judgment of the High Court dated 3rd May, 2013, whereby writ petition No, 213 of 2011, filed by the appellant herein, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts for disposal of the appeal are that the appellant, herein, filed a writ petition in the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, whereby she challenged the appointment of respondents No, 6 to 8 for having been made without lawful authority. She alleged that the Public Service Commission advertised some posts of Lecturers including Lecturer English vide advertisement No, 2/2010. The advertisement was amended later on. Initially, 11 posts were advertised. Later on, three more posts were added and total 14 posts were advertised. Out of 14 posts three posts were reserved for refugees settled in Pakistan. Private respondents are not refugees settled in Pakistan. Their appointment orders are illegal, in violative of quota and against law. After necessary proceedings the learned Chief Justice of the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that private respondents are also refugees. No vested right has been accrued to the petitioner/appellant merely on the basis of advertisement and if the writ petition is accepted, it will disturb all the candidates who have been adjusted in pursuance of Government notification dated 15.11.2010.
3. Kh. lftikhar Ahmed, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, argued that the judgment of the High Court is against law and the record. The appellant is admittedly a refugee. In advertisement No, 2 of 2010, three posts of Lecturer English were reserved for the refugees settled in Pakistan. The appellant applied for one of the posts. Respondents No, 6 to 8 admittedly are not the refugees.'
They are settled in District Bagh, Sudhnuti and Kotli, respectively. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court has incorrectly observed that the respondents are also refugees. The learned counsel submitted that under law a merit list is valid only for six months and that too only for the post for which the test and interview was conducted and if any of the candidates fails to join the recommended post within a period of 6 months or ceases to hold the post. The appointment cannot be ride against a post which has not been advertised and becomes vacant in future. The findings of the High Court that the appellant is not an aggrieved person, is not maintainable because the Government has advertised the post, she applied for one of the posts and was eligible to be appointed.
4. While controverting the arguments, Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi and Mr. Sherzaman Awan, Advocates, counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal. The posts were advertised through advertisement No, 2 of 2010. The post was withdrawn by the Government as under rule, the Government is competent to withdraw a post requisitioned to the Public Service Commission. The appellant is not an aggrieved per.on. She has no right to maintain the writ petition.
5. Syed Serosh Gillani, Advocate, counsel for respondent No, 6, submitted that the judgment of the High Court is perfectly legal. The writ petition in the High Court was not maintainable because it has been filed in violation of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984. The appellant has challenged the appointment order of respondents No, 6 to 8. Under Rule 32 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, it is mandatory to file a certified copy of the impugned order alongwith the writ petition. The appellant has not filed the certified copy of the impugned order with the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition was not mailtainable. The impugned order appended with the writ petition is only a photocopy. He relied upon the cases reported as Muhammad Ashfaq Khan & 2 others v. AJ&K Government & 4 others [2003 SCR 260] and recent judgment delivered by this Court in a case tilted Iffat Bibi v. Azad Government and others (Civil Appeal No, 6 of 2013, decided on 13.05.2014). The learned counsel further argued that under Section 11 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission Act, 1986, the Government is empowered to frame the rules:, The rules have been framed and under rule 13 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission Procedure Rules, 1994, the Government is empowered to withdraw any post which has been sent to the Public Service Commission. The pov,ors have correctly been exercised.
' In the case titled Muhammad Ashfaq Khan & 2 others v. AJ&K Government & 4 others, [2003 SCR 260], it was observed that under the High Court Procedure Rules, the appellants were bound to furnish the attested copy of the record with the writ petition upon which the reliance was placed by them. The photocopies were provided by them in the High Court with the writ petition, therefore, the writ was not maintainable, The same view has been reiterated in the recent judgment tilted Iffat Bibi v. Azad Government decided by this Court on 13th May, 2014.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The appellant challenged notification No, 2010(23)10/ dated 15th November, 2010 to the extent of respondents No, 6 to 8, by way of writ petition and also requested for setting aside the same. Alongwith the writ petition the appellant filed a photocopy of the notification dated 15th November, 2010 which was under challenge. The said photocopy is attested by Kh. Iftikhar Ahmed, Advocate, Muzaffarabad.
Part 'B' of Chapter VII of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 deals with the writ petition. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 makes its mandatory that the certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexure if any, in addition to separate copy for each of the respondents shall be accompanied by the writ petition. It .deem appropriate to reproduce rule 32(2), which is as under:-- "32(2) The application shall set out the name and description of the applicant, the exact nature of the relief sought and the ground on which it is sought, and shall be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied on, a certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexure if any, in addition to separate copy for each one of the respondents. The annexure accompanying the petition shall be marked numerically in red ink by the petitioner and the petition shall be properly indexed."
' The rule makes it obligatory that application/petition, apart from setting out the name and description of the applicant, exact nature of the relief sought and the ground on which it is sought, shall be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts relied on, a certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexure if any. The filing of certified copy of the impugned order is mandatory. The photocopy cannot be relied upon. It was observed in the case titled Muhammad lshfaq Khan and 2 others v. AJ&K Government and 4 others [2003 SCR 2601 as under:-- "...Under the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, the appellants were bound to furnish the attested copies of the record upon which the reliance was placed by them with their writ petition, whereas photostat copies were provided by them in the High Court, therefore, their writ petition was not maintainable. However, this aspect of the case remained unattended. Before this Court the appellants again appended with the petition for leave to appeal the Photostat copies which have been attested by one Amir Hussain Shah, Headmaster Government High School Devi Gali. These copies have not been obtained in accordance with law nor any explanation has been furnished that where original documents have been left after preparing the photostat copies; because Photostat copies, as we all know, are prepared through mechanical process, therefore, without the original record, the same cannot be relied in evidence particularly when these have not been obtained from the person who is supposed to be in possession of the original record...."
' In a recent judgment delivered by this Court in the case titled Iffat Bibi v. Azad Government & others (Civil Appeal No, 6 of 2013, decided on 13.05.2014), it has been observed that under Article 87 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, photocopy of a document is not admissible in evidence and certified copy is the one which is issued by the authority having the custody of record verifying therein, that it is certified true copy of the original record. It was observed in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment as under:-- "A perusal of the same shows that photostat 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 photostat 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 87 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 not a certified true copy under Article 87(2) and does not fulfill 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."
' The writ petition was not competently filed in the High Court. It was filed in violation of the rule 32 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court Procedure Rules. 1984, therefore the same was not maintainable.
7. Since, we have reached the conclusion that writ petition was not competently filed, it not maintainable and merited dismissal on the sole ground, therefore, there is no need to dilate upon the other arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties.
' The result of the above discussion is that the appeal has no merit. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground that it was not competently filed. No order as to the costs.