' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- Identical questions of law and the facts are involved in all the above titled appeals by leave of the Court, therefore, these are being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. Muhammad Binyamin appellant in Civil Appeal No,127 of 2015 and Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi, appellant in Civil Appeal No,160 of 2015, along with two others, filed Writ Petition No,2273 in the High Court on 30th October, 2014, alleging therein that they were appointed as Tehsil Qazi (B-17) on ad- hoc basis. They alleged that certain posts of Tehsil Qazi were advertised by the Public Service Commission. They appeared in the written test held in year 2013 and the interview was held in year 2014, but they could not attain the merit position. The Public Service Commission has advertised some more posts, the test and interview for which is yet to be conducted. They prayed that the respondents be restrained from terminating their ad hoc services till the selection authority fills in the advertised/newly created posts and withheld posts which have not been advertised. Later on, during pendency of the said writ petition, the appellants, Muhammad Binyamin and Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi filed separate Writ petitions claiming therein that they are refugees settled in Pakistan. Their quota has not correctly been determined. They are holding the merit position in the waiting list, a direction be issued to the Public Service Commission for sending their recommendation for permanent induction against the posts reserved for Tehsil Qazis. The other alleged facts were the same as were taken in Writ Petiti6n No,2273. At the stage of final arguments both the petitioners, appellants, herein filed an application for withdrawal of Writ Petition No,2273.
The learned High Court vide its impugned judgment dated 4th February, 2015, dismissed the writ petitions by observing that in presence of first writ petition, the second writ petition was not maintainable. The application for withdrawal of previous writ petition was also dismissed.
3. The facts of appeals titled Qazi Liaquat Ali Qureshi v. Azad Government and others and Ch. Muhammad Pafique v. Azad Government and others are that they were appointed as Tehsil Qazis on 09.01.1991 and 09.07.1991, respectively, on ad hoc basis. The extension in ad-hoc period was granted from time to time. The posts were advertised for ad hoc appointment against the post of Tehsil Qazi in the year 1996. Both the appellants appeared in the test and interview and after qualifying the test and interview were appointed on ad-hoc basis on 4th December, 1996 and 12th May, 1997. Again the posts were advertised for permanent induction. The appellants challenged the said advertisement by way of writ petition and requested that a direction be issued for their permanent induction on the basis of test and interview which they had qualified in year 1996. The extension in the ad hoc period has been granted to them from time to time. During pendency of the writ petitions, Abdul Razzaq and Zaheer Abbas, respondents, made an application for their impleadment as party in the line of the respondents. They were allowed to join as respondents.
They raised objection that the petitioners cannot be confirmed on the basis of test and interview conducted for the post of Tehsil Qazis for ad hoc appointment. They claimed that the petitioners appeared in response to a subsequent advertisement for the post of Tehsil Qazi but could not qualify the test and interview. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court dismissed the writ petitions through the impugned judgment on 5th March, 2014.
4. The facts of appeal titled Asghar Sadiq v. Azad Government and others are that Asghar Sadiq filed a writ petition in the High Court on 23rd December, 2014, stating therein, that the Public Service Commission advertised certain posts of Tehsil Qazi through advertisement No,3/2011 and amended advertisement No,1/2012. One post was reserved for the allocated quota of District Poonch. He alleged that he stood first in the written test, however he was awarded less marks in the interview by the Public Service Commission. He claimed that respondent No,4, Qazi Liaquat Ali Qureshi was appointed as ad hoc Tehsil Qazi against the quota of district Poonch. The ad hoc appointment is being extended illegally. He claimed that one Abdul Razzaq s/o Abdul Kareem was appointed on regular basis as Tehsil Qazi against the quota of district Poonch. He presented a representation to the respondents for reverting back the post of district Poonch but the quota has not correctly been calculated. He prayed that extension order of respondent, Qazi Liaquat Ali Qureshi be declared illegal and also sought a direction to the respondents that they shall appoint him against the post which is held by Qazi Liaquat Ali Qureshi. The writ petition was heard along with two other writ petitions and was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 3rd February, 2015, hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
5. Kh. Muhammad Nasim, Advocate, counsel for the appellant, Muhammad Binyamin, stated that three posts of Tehsil Qazi against the quota of refugees settled in Pakistan were advertised but no one could qualify, therefore, the persons who qualified from the other administrative units were appointed. Two qualified persons; one from district Pallandari and the other from Kotli were appointed against the said posts. Later on, the posts were again advertised. One post fell in the quota of refugees settled in Pakistan. In fact three pots were withheld. The learned counsel referred to a copy of the budget relating to the year 2014-15 and submitted that two posts were available which have been withheld with mala fide intention. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned High ourt incorrectly dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that in presence of previous writ petition subsequent writ petition was not maintainable. He argued that the questions raised in the first writ petition were totally different to the questions raised in the subsequent writ petitions. The second writ petition was competently filed on new cause of action. He requested for acceptance of appeal.
6. Mr. Tahir Aziz Khan, Advocate, counsel for the appellant in Appeal No,160/2015, titled Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi v. Azad Government and others, argued that his case is the same as has been put forth by the learned counsel, Kh. Muhammad Nasim, Advocate in Appeal No,127/2015, titled Muhammad Binyamin v. Azad Government and others. He adopted the argument advanced by Kh.
Muhammad Nasim, Advocate.
7. Mr. Asghar Ali Malik and Syed Shafqat Hussain Gardezi, Advocates, the learned counsel for the appellants in Appeals Nos. 128 and 129 of 2015, submitted that the posts of Tehsil Qazi were advertised for ad hoc appointment. They appeared in the test and interview, qualified the same and were appointed as ad hoc Tehsil Qazi on the basis of said test and interview. Later on, the department did not advertise the posts. No test and interview were conducted. They are holding the posts and the period of their ad-hoc appointment has been extended from time to time. They are entitled for confirmation on the basis of test and interview which they qualified, conducted for ad hoc appointment. Both the learned counsel in response to the Court question, argued that there is no law on the basis of which a person can be permanently appointed on the basis of qualifying the test and interview conducted for appointment on ad hoc basis. However, they requested that their case be considered for permanent induction on passionate grounds because, Qazi Liaquat Ali Qureshi, appellant in Appeal No,128/2015, has crossed the age of superannuation and is out of service. Similarly, Ch. Muhammad Rafique, appellant in Appeal No,129/2015 has also crossed the age limit for applying against the post. They requested that for doing the complete justice, the inherent powers may be invoked and a direction be issued for permanent induction of the appellants.
8. Sardar Muhammad Habib Zia, the counsel for the appellant in Appeal No,173/2015 titled Asghar Sadiq v. Azad Government and others, submitted, that Qazi Liquat Ali Qureshi who is resident of Tehsil Pallandari, was appointed as Tehsil Qazi on ad hoc basis in the year 1991. The post fell in the quota of district Poonch. The appellant has requested in the writ petition that this post be reverted back to the strength of district Poonch. If this post is reverted back, then one post becomes available in the quota of district Poonch. He submitted that the appellant Asghar Sadiq is at No,1 position in the waiting list, therefore, he is entitled for appointment against the said post.
9. While controverting the arguments, Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Additional Advocate-General, submitted that the judgments of the High Court are perfectly legal. The appellants, Muhammad Binyamin, Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi and Asghar Sadiq were placed in the waiting list. No post was withheld. All the available posts were advertised. Muhammad Binyamin, Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi and Asghar Sadiq have not challenged the advertisements. They participated in the test and interview and after failing to acquire the merit position they have filed the writ petitions stating therein that the quota was not correctly determined. The learned Additional Advocate-General referred to cases reported as Mst. Tanveer Ashraf and 25 others AJ&K Government and 2 others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 524 and Waqas Latif and 3 others v. Azad Government and 6 others 2013 PLC (C.S.)
887. He further submitted that the High Court has correctly dismissed the writ petitions filed by Muhammad Binyamin and Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi on the ground that one writ petition was already pending on the same subject. The relief claimed in the subsequent writ petitions was the same as was claimed in the previous writ petition. The High Court has correctly dismissed the writ petitions. He further argued from the record that at present two Tehsil Qazis are appointed from District Poonch. One Muzher-ul-Hassan is appointed as Tehsil Qazi Abbaspur and Altaf Abid is also appointed as Tehsil Qazi. One post in district Poonch is vacant. Three posts of Tehsil Qazis for the refugees were advertised. No one qualified from the refugees settled in Pakistan. One Akhlaq Hussain from district Pallandari and Imran Wazeer from district Kotli have been appointed against the quota of refugees. He submitted that in the light of Notification No,2005(87)4 e.-1/eVidated 18.01.2007, when the posts in the quota of district Sudhnuti and Kotli will become available these will be reverted back to the quota of refugees settled in Pakistan. The learned Additional Advocate- General further submitted that no post was withheld nor any other post was available at the time of issuance of advertisements Nos.1/2011 and 3/2011. He requested for dismissal of all the appeals.
10. After hearing the arguments, the judgment was reserved; meanwhile, the appellant, Muhammad Binyameen, moved an application for withdrawal of the appeal. Thus, while accepting the application the appeal titled Muhammad Binyamin v. Azad Government is dismissed as withdrawn.
11. The case of the appellant, Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi, in Appeal No,160 of 2015 is at par with the case of the appellant, Muhammad Binyameen. The learned counsel for the appellant, Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi, also stated at bar that his case is the same as is put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, Muhammad Binyameen. Although, the case of the appellant, Muhammad Binyameen, has been dismissed as withdrawn, however, we have examined the case of appellant,. Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi, in the light of the arguments addressed by the counsel for the appellant, Muhammad Binyameen. The main argument of the learned counsel is that the learned High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that in presence of earlier writ petition subsequent writ petitions on the same grounds are not maintainable, whereas, the points raised in the subsequent writ petitions were quite different to the earlier one. To appreciate the argument, we have examined the record. The perusal of the writ petitions shows that in presence of Writ Petition No,2273 the subsequent Writ Petitions Nos.2285 and 2320 were filed on the same grounds, moreover, it is also apparent from the impugned judgment that the counsel for the appellant has also not denied this fact before the High Court. It will be advantageous to reproduce here the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which reeds as under:- "However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.2285/2014 and 2320/2014 were asked that in presence of first Writ Petition No,2273/2014, how petitioners Muhammad Binyameen and Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi, have filed the aforesaid two latter writ petition? The learned counsel submitted that both the petitioners failed to apprise them about filing of earlier writ petition....
11. Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi and 03 others also appearing in Writ Petition No,2273/2014, was confronted that how petitioners Muhammad Binyameen and Muhammad Azeem Mujadadi, filed Subsequent writ petitions in presence of their first petition, who submitted in previous writ petition only competent authority was impleaded party while in later two writ petitions Azad Govt. And Public Service Commission were also impleaded party, therefore, second writ petitions were not barred by law."
' In this state of affairs, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the subsequent writ petitions were filed on different grounds is not convincing in nature as the same is against the record. It may be observed here that it is well established principle of law that a party who comes to the Court while suppressing facts is not entitled to any reliefs. As the appellant filed the subsequent writ petitions without disclosing the earlier one, therefore, the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the same on the strength of law laid down by this Court in the cases reported a Abid Hussain Jafri and others v. Azad Government and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 141 and Kashmir Mining and Development Works v. Azad Government and 5 others 1997 CLC 1771.
11. It is also spelt out from the record that the appellant did not challenge the advertisement rather he himself participated in the selection process and could not qualify for the advertised posts, therefore, he filed the writ petition while taking the stance that at the time of advertisements Nos.03/2012 and 01/2013 he requested the authority through' representations for determination of quota of the refugees settled in Pakistan and on assurance of the authority he participated in the selection process, whereas, the record negates the version of the appellant. The appellant failed to substantiate his claim before the High Court as well as .Before this Court that he ever filed any representation before the concerned authority. In this scenario, we do agree with the findings recorded by. The learned High Court in para 20 of the impugned judgment.
12. The argument of the learned counsel Qazi Liaqat Ali Qureshi and Muhammad Rafique Chaudhary, the appellants., in Appeals Nos.128 and 129 of 2015 is that when the posts of Tehsil Qazi were advertised for ad hoc appointments the appellants qualified the test and interview, therefore, they are entitled for confirmation on the basis of said test/interview. During the course of arguments, on Court's query the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no law on the strength of which a person can be permanently appointed on the basis o qualifying the test and interview conducted for ad hoc appointment, however, this Court has ample power to grant prayed relief humanitarian grounds as one appellant has crossed the age of superannuation and the other has crossed maximum age limit for the post. We are afraid, such argument cannot be expected from the senior lawyers, as the Courts are not supposed to decide the cases in departure of the settled law. The test/interview conducted for the appointment on ad hoc basis cannot be made basis for regular appointment and the permanent appointment can only be made after following the prescribed mode of appointment. As the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants is not supported by law, therefore, the same is hereby repelled. This Court time and again has held that the appointments can only be made on the basis of merit determined in the open competition and the law does not admit any such tactics that any person, who has been appointed on ad hoc basis and thereafter for one reason or the other continued as such for an indefinite period and then becomes entitled for the permanent induction. In a case reported as Hussain Khan and 57 others v. Azad Government and 9 others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1456 this Court observed as under:--- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The case of the petitioners in all the three writ petition, filed in the High Court, is that they are ad-hoc appointees.
They were initially appointed for six months and the period of their ad hoc appointment is being extended from time to time. We may observe that all the appointments in the civil service are made on the basis of merit determined in the open competition. Selection on merit is instrumental in creating necessary confidence and independence to perform the functions as a civil servant particularly under the Rules of business. The purpose of appointment on the basis of merit determined in open competition is that all the civil servants appointed after open competition should carry on the administration independently. The Public Service Commission is an important organ of the State for recruitment in civil service. It is a constitutional body."
' In another case reported as Mst. Tanveer Ashraf and 25 others v. AJ&K Government and 2 others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 524 while dealing with the proposition this Court observed that:- "Be that as it may, however, even if the ad hoc appointment is made in strict compliance of Rule 23 of Rules, 1977, such appointment couldn't create any right for permanent or regular appointment as has been categorically mentioned in the appointment order and also in the Rules. In Azad Jammu and Kashmir, appointments in the service are regularized by the law known as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 and the Rules made thereunder. The spirit of law is that the appointment should be made on the basis of merit determined by the concerned selection authorities. The Interim Constitution of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has guaranteed the right of equality before law and equal treatment of law, thus, this right can only be enforced by following the prescribed mode of appointment by advertising the vacancies and determination of the merit of the eligible candidates through transparent selection process. Law doesn't admit any such tactics that any person, who has been appointed on ad-hoc basis and thereafter for one reason or the other continued such for an indefinite period and then becomes entitled for the permanent induction. Such induction through back door, in fact, amount to violation of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of equality before law and the enforced law regulating the mode of appointment. If such practice is allowed it will encourage the influential and clever persons to manoeuvre for occupation of the civil post and deprive the qualified candidates to complete on the basis of merit. Such a practice is not only violation of land and fundamental right but also at the end of day may result into inefficiency, maladministration and also be a main cause of generating the corruption."
' Similarly, in a case reported as Waqas Latif and 3 others v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Muzaffaraba. d and 6 others 2013 PLC (C.S.) 887 this Court observed as under:- "8. It is now settled that except the method of appointment on merit determined through a transparent open competition, no other method, tactics, policy or practice can be approved, therefor, it can be safely held that Condition No,1 imposed in this notification is quite in accordance with the spirit of law and principle of law enunciated by this Court in several cases."
13. The 'argument of the learned counsel for the appellant, Asghar Sadiq, in Appeal 173 of 2015 is that Qazi Liaqat Ali Qureshi is resident of Tehsil Pallandri who was appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 1991. The post fell in the quota of district Poonch. The appellant is at serial No,1 of the waiting list, therefore, he is entitled for appointment while reverting back the said post. To appreciate with argument, we have examined the record. It is spelt out from the record that the case of the appellant is also at par with the case of the appellants in Appeals Nos. 127 and 160 of 2015 as he also participated in the selection process and when he could not earn the merit position he challenged the same while taking the stance that immediately after publication of advertisements he filed representations before the concerned authority for determination of quota. The record shows that he also failed to substantiate before the High Court that he ever filed any representation in this regard. The findings recorded by the learned High Court in para 17 of the judgment delivered in Asghar Sadiq's case are in accordance with law, therefore, we affirm the same as the appellant failed to brought on record any proof regarding the filing of representations.
In the light of above discussion, Appeal No 127 of 2015 titled Muhammad Binyameen v. Azad Government and other is dismissed as 'withdrawn whereas, the other appeals having no substance are also hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.