MOHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, C.J.--- The titled review petition has been filed from the order passed by the Court on 5th March, 2015, whereby in the light of statement of the counsel for the petitio ner, that the appellant/petitioner herein, has already been retired from service, the appeal was dismissed having become infrastructure.
2. The petitioner was serving as Divisional Directorates Schools (Female), Muzaf farabad. Through order dated 24th July, 2014, she was transferred as Deputy Director , Directorate of Curriculum, Research and Development Centre.
She challenged the said order by way of Appeal No.473 in the Service Tribunal, filed on 25th July, 2014. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal in limine. The petitioner challenged the said order by way of petition for leave to appeal in this Court. Apart from others, she challenged the order on the ground that findings recorded by the Service Tribunal that the petitioner is not an officer of grade B-19, rather she is an officer of grade B-18. Leave to appeal was granted in the case. During the tendency of appeal the petitioner , filed an application on 26th September , 2014 for withdrawal of the appeal. On 1 1 th October , 2014, she filed another application that she wants to withdraw the appeal only to the extent of the notification dated 24th July, 2014, but on 5th March, 2015, the counsel for the petitioner made a statement in the open Court that the petitione r has been retired from service, therefore, the appeal has become infrastr ucture. He requested for dismissal of the appeal. In the light of statement of the counsel for the appellant/petitioner herein, the appeal was dismissed havin g become infrastructure on 5th March, 2015.
3. The petitioner herself filed the instant review petition on 28th March, 2015. She alleged in the review petition that she moved an application for withdrawal of the appeal on the ground that she is no more interested for cancellation of the transfer order dated 24th July, 2014, she only wants to continue the appeal to the extent of remarks passed by the Service Tribunal that she is not an officer of grade B-19. For the said purpose she moved an application on 11th October , 2014, but the counsel for the petitioner on 5th March, 2015 in misconception made the statement in the Court for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that she has been retired from service. In fact, she wanted to withdraw the appeal to the extent of transfer order dated 24th July, 2014. She requested that adverse remarks passed by the Service Tribunal that she is not a civil servant of grade B-19 be expunged. She filed written arguments in support of the review petition.
4. I have perused the review petition and written submissions made by the petitioner .
5. The petitioner was serving as Divisional Directorates Schools (Female) Muzaffarabad Division. She was transferred on 24th July, 2014. She challenged the said order by way of appeal No.473 in the Service Tribunal on 25th July, 2014. The service Tribunal dismissed the appeal in liming. While dismissing the appeal against the transfer order , the Service Tribunal made the following observation:- "The appellant has been confirmed as Deputy Director in grade B-I8, however , she has been granted grade B-I9 under 4-tier formula. According to the 4-tier formula which is notified on 23.7.1997, it is provided that the grade awarded under 4-tier formula shall be personal grade of the officer. Meaning thereby that the appellant who is promoted in grade B-19 under 4-tier formula has not been promoted in grade B-19.
Basically , she is an of ficer of grade B-18 ..."
The petitioner has herself filed the review petition. Under Rule 6 of Order XLVI of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, every revie w petition shall be filed by the advocate who appeared at the hearing of the case in which the judgment or order sought to be reviewed, was made. The rule further provides that review petition may be drawn by any other advocate with special leave of the Court. In that case, the advocate who appeared in the original case, shall remain present in the Court unless his appeara nce is dispensed with and rule 4 of Order XLVI, postulates that the Advocate signing the application shall specify in brief the points upon which the prayer for review is based and shall add a certificate to the effect that consistently with law and practice of the Court, a review would be justifiable in the case. The certificate shall be in the form of a reasoned opinion. The review petition cannot be filed without a certificate of the counsel who signed the review petition. There is a wisdom behind it that review petition on legal question is maintainable on the basis of certificate in the form of reasoned opinion by the advocate who appeared in the original case. It was observed in the case titled Ghulam Nabi and others v . Muhammad Khan and others (Civil Review No.31 of 2014, decided on 08.05.2015), as under:- "The wisdom behind the rule is that the advocate who conducted the case is well aware of the facts and law. He may form opinion that review lies on the ground that there is some error apparent on the face of record and in civil matters on the ground akin to Order XLVII, Rule I, C.P.C. Or discovery of some new evidence is available which was not available at the time of appeal or any other sufficient ground. An ordinary person cannot form such opinion. The review petition is accompanied by a certificate of the petitioners who are not advocates. Only an advocate who represented the party in the appeal may file such certificate.
Therefore, the review petition is in violation of Rule 4 of Order XL VI."
In another case titled Khurshid Ahmed and others v. Raja Javaid Ayub Khan and others (Criminal Review No.2 of 2015, decided on 08.05.2015), it was observed as under:- "A certificate as required under Order XLVI, Rule 4 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 has been filed by the petitioners themselves. The requirement of Order XLVI, Rule, 4 is that no advocate other than who represented the party in the original appeal may draw the review petition and Rule 4 postulates that the advocate signing the review petition shall file a certificate to the effect that consistently "with the law and practice of the Court, a review petition would be justifiable in the case". The wisdom behind the rule is that the advocate who conducted the case is well aware of the facts and law. He may form opinion that review lies on the ground that there is some error apparent on the face of record and in civil matters on the ground akin to Order XL VII, Rule 1, C.P.C. Or discovery of some new evidence is available which was not available at the time of appeal or any other sufficient ground. An ordinary person cannot form such opinion. The review petition is accompanied by a certificate of the petitioners who are not advocates. Only an advocate who represented the party in the appeal may file such certificate."
Thus the review petition is not competently filed, it merits dismissal.
6. Despite the fact that I have decided to dismiss the review petition on the ground that it has not competently been filed, I have perused the judgment of the Service Tribunal. The matter before the Service Tribunal was in respect of the notification dated 24th July, 2014, whereby the petitioner was transferred as Deputy Directorates. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal in liming but at the same time made the observa tion which adversely affects the service rights of the petitioner . It is a fit case for exercising powers vested in this Court under the provisions of section 42-A(1) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 read with Order XLIII, Rule 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978. For doing the complete justice by exercising such powers, the observation made by the Service Tribunal to the extent that the petitioner is not an officer of grade B-19 are hereby quashed. It shall not form part of the judgment of the Service Tribunal.
With the above observation, the review petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.