Mohammad Azara Khan, C.J.--The titled appeals with the leave of the Court arise out of the judgment of the High Court dated 24th July, 2013. Common questions of law are involved in both the appeals, therefore, these are being disposed of through single judgment.
2. UBL Progressive Employees Union was registered by the Registrar Trade Unions on 10th September, 2011. Office bearers of the Unions were registered by the Registrar Trade Union on 18th October, 2011, (C.B.A.) collective bargaining agent certificate in favour of the said Union was issued on 31st October, 2011 and the script of office bearers was issued on 18th October, 2011. United Bank Limited challenged the said order of the Registrar through a writ petition filed on 1" October, 2012 after a period of more than one, year for being issued without lawful authority. After necessary proceeding, the learned High Court quashed the orders passed by the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar being without lawful authority and of no legal effect through the impugned judgment dated 24th July, 2013. Both the parties have challenged the said judgment.
3. Mr. Muhammad Idrees Mughal, Advocate, the counsel for United Bank Limited, submitted that the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as I.R.O.) is not applicable in the present case. United Bank is a banking company. The Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly has no jurisdiction to enact laws for the territories of Pakistan. The I.R.O. has been issued by the Azad Government, therefore, it is not applicable on banking companies. The learned counsel forcefully argued that after 18th amendment in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 new Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (I.R.A.) has been enacted on 13th April, 2012 and after promulgation of new Industrial Relations Act, the banks are being governed by the said Act. The I.R.O. has no concern with the banking companies. The learned counsel submitted that the banking companies are licenced by the State Bank of Pakistan and the banks working under the licence of the State Bank of Pakistan are not amenable to the AJ&K laws. In I.R.A., trans provincial companies and multinational companies are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts. The learned counsel referred to unreported judgments of Pakistan titled Telecommunication Company Limited vs. Meniber NIRC and others (Civil Appeal No, 407/2013 decided on 17th February, 2012), State Bank of Pakistan vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court (Civil Appeal No, 1150/2012 decided on 13th February, 2013) and Air League of PIAC Employees vs. Federation of Pakistan (Constitutional Petition No, 24 of 2011 decided on 2.6.2011). The learned counsel also referred to the cases titled Commissioner Income Tax Muzaffarabad and others vs. Altaf Ahemd Mir, AVP, NBP, RHQ, Muzaffarabad and others (PLJ 200. SC (AJ&K) 101) and Said Muhammad and 4 others vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad Jammu &, Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 8 others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1).
In the case titled Said Muhammad and 4 others vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad Jammu & Kashmir, Muzaffarabad and 8 others (PLD 2006 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1), while deciding the writ petition, the High Court failed to resolve the preliminary objection raised by the respondents, This Court observed that without first having the wisdom of the High Court in the matter it is not appropriate for this Court to decide the question involved in the case. The case was remanded.
In the case titled Commissioner Income Tax Muzaffarabad and others vs. Altaf Ahmed Mir, AVP, NBP, RHQ, Muzaffarabad and others (PL 2002 SC (AJ&K) 101), it was observed by this Court that banks established by the Government of Pakistan are neither acting in connection with the affairs of the State of Azad Jammu & Kashmir nor the same are under the control of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government or the AJ&K Council, therefore, the writ cannot be issued against the management of such banks under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act.
In appeal titled Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. vs. Member NIRC and others (Civil Appeal No, 407/2013 decided on 17th February, 2014), the controversy involved was relating to I.R.A.
2012.
In the case titled State Bank of Pakistan vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (Civil Appeal No, 1150/2012 decided on 13th February, 2013), the matter raised before the Court was regarding the implementation of the judgment of the Labour Court. The case was decided through consolidated judgment and in other appeals the matter involved relating to the validity of I.R.O., 2008.
In case titled Air League of PIAC Employees vs. Federation of Pakistan (Constitutional Petition No, 24 of 2011 decided on 2.6.2011), the question involved was that what is the status of I.R.O., 2008 by virtue of Article 270-AA added through 18th amendment introduced in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
4. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the United Bank Ltd., Mr. Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Advocate, the counsel for UBL Progressive Employees Union & others, submitted that the appeal filed by the United Bank Limited is not competent because the writ petition filed by the United Bank has been accepted. The appeal has only been filed for academic discussion. It merits dismissal. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment of the High Court is against law and the record. The writ petition is not maintainable because alternate remedy by way of application is available against the registration process. Under Section 10 of I.R.O., the Registrar has power to register a Trade Union and issue certificate under Section 12 of the said Ordinance and under Section 13, the registrar may file complaint in the Labour Court for cancellation of the registration of Union. The learned counsel submitted that finding recorded by the High Court that the officers of the Bank cannot be the members or office bearers of the Union, is against law. It is not a designation rather it is the nature of the duties assigned, which determines whether a person is a workman or not.
5. Mr. Riaz Tabassum, Advocate, the counsel for UBL Progressive Employees Union argued that alternate remedy for cancellation of registration of Union is available to the bank. In presence of alternate remedy the writ petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel relied upon case law reported as Burewala Textile Mills Limited, Burewala vs. Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan and 3 others (1994 PLC 323), Kohinoor Tea Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. Director of Labour and others (2001 PLC 367) and Agriculture Workers' union Balochistan vs. The Registrar of Trade Unions, Balochistan Quetta and others (1997 SCM R 66).
In the case titled Burewala Textile Mills Limited, Burewala us. Registrar, Trade Unions, Multan and 3 others (1994 PLC 323), the Lahore High Court observed that the employer is authorized to object to the registration of Union before the Registrar and the Registrar is The learned High Court after necessary proceedings through consolidated impugned judgment dated 19.6.2014 disposed off the writ petition as indicated in the preceding Paragraph No, 1.
3. Mr. Raza Ali Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, while arguing Appeal No, 236 of 2014 titled Syed Khadim Hussain Bukhari and others vs. Imran Aziz Butt & others, submitted that the judgment passed by the High Court is against law and the facts of the case, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further contended that at the time of requisition, only one post which was held by Respondent No, 1, was available. He submitted that the other post became vacant due to resignation of Tahir Saleem Usmani, therefore, the claim of the respondent that the post which had been advertised was not the one which he was holding is totally against the facts and record. He contended that the respondent, while concealing the true facts from the High Court, succeeded to get the direction in his favour. The learned counsel contended that before completion of the process of selection in the Public Service Commission, the Government vide notification dated 21.12.2010 shifted one post of Assistant Director Mineral Resources to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour. He submitted that appellant No, 1 was appointed against the said post on promotion basis. He further contended that the respondent did not challenge the notification dated 21.12.2010 and after the promotion of appellant No, 1, there was no post available. The learned High Court erred in law while holding that two posts were available at the time of the requisition and one was withheld by the Public Service Commission/department. In this way, the learned High Court while accepting the writ petition issued the direction for appointment of the respondent is based on misconception. The respondent while filing writ petition in the High Court has not arrayed the appellants as party in the writ petition. The impugned judgment of the High Court has been passed against the interest of the appellants, therefore, they have been constrained to file the appeal before this Court. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel referred different documents available on the record, while submitting that all these documents escaped from the notice of the learned High Court, which resulted into wrong conclusion by the High Court while holding that there were two posts available in the department.
He further argued that the official respondents in their written statement categorically denied the requisition of the second post. He submitted that the respondent brought on record the fake documents which itself disentitled him to any sort of discretionary relief. The learned High Court while setting aside the notification dated 21.12.2010 regarding the shifting of the post also failed to take into account that the impugned judgment would affect the accrued right of the appellants.
The learned counsel lastly argued that the relief granted to the respondent is against the pleadings, which is otherwise against the settled principle of law.
5.On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Rasheed Abbasi, Advocate, the learned counsel for Respondent No, 1, strongly controverted the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants, while submitting that the judgment passed by the High Court is perfect and legal which is not opened to interfere with by this Court. He argued that the learned High Court has attended all the controversial questions and resolved the same while assigning strong reasons. He argued that two posts of Assistant Director, Mineral Resources, one at Muzaffarabad and the other at Mirpur were vacant in the department of Mineral Resources in the year 2006. He argued that two separate requisitions were sent to the Public Service Commission on 11.3.2006 and 4.11.2006, respectively. He argued that the appellants had already admitted in their comments that 4wo posts of Assistant Director, Miperal Resources were requisitioned to the Public Service Commission. He submitted that the requisition sent to the P.S.C. was never withdrawn with the approval of the competent authority.
The claim of the appellants that only one post of Assistant Director Mineral Resources was available with the department is against the record. He further argued that the appellants have been promoted against the post on officiating basis which does not confer any right, hence, they do not fall under the definition of aggrieved persons and their appeal is not maintainable even on this sole ground. He averred that the leaned High Court has rightly issued the direction to the Public Service Commission to send the recommendations of the respondent against the post of Assistant Director Mineral Resources held by the respondent.
6. Sardar Muhammad Rasham Khan, Additional Advocate-General, the learned counsel for the appellants, while arguing Appeal No, 237 of 2014 titled Azad Govt & others vs. Imran Aziz Butt and another, adopted the arguments of Mr. Raza Ali Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants in Appeal No, 236 of 2014 titled Syed Khadim Hussain Bukhari and others vs. Imran Aziz Butt & others, while adding that only one post became vacant with the department agaist which the requisition was sent to the Public Service Commission for conducting test and interview. He argued that proforma-Respondent No, 2, being successftll candidate was appointed against the said post. He further argued that another post which fell vacant due to resignation of one Mr. Tahir Saleem Usmani had been shifted to the Industrial Department in the year 2010 even before the institution of the writ petition of the respondents. He submitted that the learned High Court was not justified to accept the writ petition filed by the respondent, which is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. Mr. Abdul Rasheed Abbasi, Advocate, the learned counsel for Respondent No, 1, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal filed by the Azad Govt & others vs. Imran Aziz Butt & others, submitted that the petition for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court is governed under Order XIII, of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978. The provisions of Rule 3 of the said rule are mandatory in nature, which provides that alongwith petition for leave to appeal, the copy of memo. of appeal filed before the High Court is mandatory. The appellants Azad Govt. & others failed to annex with the petition for leave to appeal the memo. of appeal titled Mehtab Munir Butt vs. Azad Govt. & others, Writ Petition No, 1274 of 2013. Thus, on the violation of this mandatory provision, the appeal is not maintainable. When the learned Additional Advocate-General, representing the Azad Govt. & others, is confronted with the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for Respondent No, 1, he contended that in Paragraph No, 2 of the memo. of petition far leave to appeal, it has specifically been averred that the appellants, Azad Govt. & others only assailing the judgment to the extent of real respondent, i.e,, Imran Aziz Butt. He submitted that the Azad Govt. and others shall press the appeal only to the extent of Respondent No, 1.
8. After hearing the arguments on the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for Respondent No, 1, the appeal as per averment made by the appellants in ground 2 of the memo. of petition for leave to appeal, we are of the view that the appeal is only maintainable to the extent of Respondent No, 1 and the judgment of the High Court to the extent of Mehtab Munir Butt attained finality.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of the case minutely. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that one Imran Aziz Butt, Assistant Director, Mineral Resources, who was serving on adhoc basis and Sardar Abdul Majeed Khan, Assistant Controller Weights & Measures, B-17 and the other officials serving in the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour were shifted alongwith the posts to the Department of Mineral Resources vide notification dated 10th July, 2002. Sardar Abdul Majeed Khan, after shifting of the post in the Department of Mineral Resources was appointed as Assistant Director, Mineral Resources at Mirpur, whereas, Imran Aziz Butt, adhoc Assistant Director, Mineral Resources was appointed at Sharda.
Later on, vide order dated 5th March, 2005, Sardar Abdul Majeed Khan, Assistant Director, Mineral Resources was promoted on officiating basis as Assistant Director, Licensing/Monitoring, B-18. On 22.11.2005, one, Tahir Saleem Usmani, on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission was appointed as Assistant Director Mineral Recourses against the post occupied by Imran Aziz Butt, Respondent No, 1 on adhoc basis. After the appointment of Tahir Saleem Usmani, Imran Aziz Butt, Respondent No, 1, was appointed on adhoc basis against the post of Assistant Director Mineral Resources, which fell vacant due to the promotion of Sardar Abdul Majeed Khan. The department vide letter 'dated 11.3.2006 sent the requisition to the Public Service Commission for the appointment against the post of Assistant Director, Mineral Resources, B-17 falling vacant at Mirpur, which was occupied by Respondent No,
1. It was provided that the said post which is falling vacant at Mirpur and occurred on 7.3.2005 shall be filled up through initial recruitment. During the correspondence between the Public Service Commission and the Department regarding the clarification of the requisition sent on 11.3.2006, Tahir Saleem Usmani, who was appointed as Assistant Director, Mineral Resources, B-17 at Muzaffarabad resigned from the office on 4.11.2006. On this, Respondent No, 1, Imran Aziz Butt, Assistant Director, Mineral Resources was transferred land appointed against the post,. which fell vacant due to resignation of Tahir Saleem Usmani on 5.4.2008. The post of Assistant Director, Mineral Resources, B-17 requisitioned on 11.3.2006 by the Department, was advertised by the Public Service Commission on 20.3.2007. After advertisement of the post of Assistant Director, Mineral Resources, B-17 in the advertisement No, 1 of 2007, the department also requisitioned another post of Assistant Director, Mineral Resources, Muzaffarabad held by Imran Aziz Butt, Respondent No, 1, at Muzaffarabad. In the requisition, the date of occurrence of the vacancy is shown as 4.4.2006, which is the date when the incumbent of the post resigned from the office. The requisitioned post was not advertised by the Public Service Commission. The department of Industries, Commerce and Labour vide letter dated 15th October, 2010 initiated the process for transferring back the post of Assistant Controller, Weights & Measures, the nomenclature of which was changed as Assistant Director, Mineral Resources. After completion of the process, the post by sanction of the Government was transferred back to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour.
10. To resolve the controversy, we have to resort the relevant statute dealing with the subject, i.e,, AJ&K, Public Service Commission Act, 1986 and the AJ&K Public ,Service Commission Procedural Rules, 1994 made thereunder. Rule 3, sub-rule (2) of the AJ&K Public Service Commission (Procedural Rules, 1994) is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-- "3.(1)
(2) Once post has been advertised by the Commission, the administrative Secretary shall not be competent to withdraws/requisition or reduce number of posts without the orders of the Government stating reasons therein."
It is evident from this provision that once post has been advertised by the Commission, the administrative Secretary shall not be competent to withdraw the requisition or reduce the number of the posts without the orders of the Government stating reasons therein.
11. The official respondents have taken the stance in the cross appeal that the post which fell vacant due to the resignation of Tahir Saleem Usmani, Assistant Director, Mineral Resources on 4.11.2006 was shifted back to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour from the department of Mineral Resources vide notification dated 21.12.2010. To resolve the controversy, whether the post requisitioned through requisition dated 11.3.2006 was shifted to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour or the post which fell vacant on 4.11.2006 due to resignation of Tahir Saleem Usmani, we have to resort to the notification dated 10.7.2002 and the summary submitted for shifting back of the disputed post. The relevant portion of the notification dated 10.7.2002, is reproduced as under: {{URDU TEXT}} Whereas,. the relevant portion of the summary dated 15.10.2010 submitted for re-shifting Of the post is reproduced as under: {{URDU TEXT}} {{URDU TEXT}} The juxtapose perusal of the notification dated 10th July, 2002 and summary dated 15.10.2010 show that-on 10.7.2002, a post of Assistant Controller, Weights and Measures, B-17 was shifted to the Department of Mineral Resources and the nomenclature of the same was changed and the post was designated as Assistant Director, Mineral Resources, B-17. The summary submitted on 15.10.2010 shows that the post of Assistant Controller Weights and Measures B-17 which was shifted through notification dated 10.7.2002 was requested to be shifted back to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour. It has clearly been mentioned in the summary dated 15.10.2010 that the post of Assistant Controller, Weights and Measures,. B-17 and the nomenclature of which was later on changed to Assistant Director, Mineral Resources 8-17 be shifted back to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour. Thus, the juxtapose perusal of the notification dated 10th July, 2002 and the summary dated 15.10.2010 show that the post which was shifted back to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour through notification dated 21.12.2010 was the same post which was occupied by Sardar Abdul Majeed Khan at the time of shifting of the posts.
The argument of the counsel for the department that the post Shifted back from the department of Mineral Resources to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour was the post which fell vacant due to resignation of Tahir Saleem Usmani on 11.4.12006 and not the post which was shifted through notification dated 10.7.2002, is not convincing in nature.
12. Now we advert to the other point argued by the learned counsel for Respondent No, 1 that the post which fell vacant on 4.4.2006 and requisitioned to the Public Service Commission for advertisement on 18.11.2006 has not been advertised rather the same has been withheld. As under law the post which fell vacant on 4.4.2006 should have been advertised alongwith the post requisitioned for advertisement on 11.3.2006. It is pertinent to mention here that the post of Assistant Director, Mineral Resources, B-17 requisitioned through letter dated 11.3.2006, was pending for advertisement with the Public Service Commission when the other post which fell vacant on the resignations of Tahir Saleem Usmani on 4.4.2006 was also requisitioned for advertisement on 18.11.2006. It is also pertinent to mention here that the post requisitioned to the Public Service Commission on 11.3.2006 was advertised through advertisement No, 1 of 2007 on 23.7.2007 but the post requisitioned on 18.11.2006 was not advertised through advertisement No, 1 of 2007, which according to the version of the respondent falls in the ambit of withheld post. Rule, 9 of the AJ&K Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994 is relevant to deal with the situation, which reads as under:-- "9.If the requisitioning authority intimates additional vacancies to the Commission before the date of test/examination or interview is fixed, keeping in view the time factor, a fresh advertisement/amendment to the previous advertisement shall be issued and fresh application shall be invited. The candidates, who had already applied in response to the original advertisement, may not be required to apply again."
A perusal of Rule, 9 of the AJ&K Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994 shows that if the requisitioning authority sends the requisition of the additional vacancy to the Public Service Commission before the date of test and interview is fixed, keeping in view the time factor, a fresh advertisement/amendment to the previous advertisement shall be issued and fresh application shall be invited. It is pertinent to mention here that the requisition sent by the department on 11.13.2006 was still in waiting for advertisement when the additional post falling vacant at Muzaffarabad, was requisitioned on 18.11.2006 as the post requisitioned on 11.3.2006 Was advertised on 23.7.2007. The rule clearly provides that if the requisitioning authority sends an additional post then the Public Service Commission is under obligation keeping in view the time factor, if the date of test and interview was not fixed, to amend the previous advertisement. Even otherwise, for the sake of arguments, if it is presumed that the post requisitioned on 11.3.2006 was advertised and later on the additional, post was requisitioned then under law, it was obligatory for the Public Service Commission to issue the amended advertisement or issue fresh advertisement. In this case the post was advertised through advertisement 1 of 2007 and the test and interview was conducted in the year 2013. If it is assumed that the post requisitioned on 11.3.2006 was advertised even then a sufficient time was available with the Public Service Commission to advertise the additional post requisitioned later on, but in the instant case, both the posts have been requisitioned before the advertisement of 1 of 2007, therefore, under rules, the Public Service Commission had to advertise both the posts through advertisement No, 1 of 2007. If for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the post requisitioned for advertisement on 11.3.2006 was shifted back to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour, even then an hurdle remains in the way as the High Court through the impugned judgment categorically concluded that Mehtab Munir Butt, proforma-respondent, shall be adjusted against the post which was requisitioned for advertisement on 11.3.2006, as to this extent the findings have attained finality because the Azad Govt. & others have not challenged the findings recorded in the writ petition titled Mehtab Munir Butt vs. Azad ,Govt. & others in which these specific findings were given by the High Court as is evident from the preceding Paragraph.
13. It was obligatory for the Public Service Commission to advertise both the posts requisitioned through letter dated 11.3.2006 and 18.11.2006 but the concerned department failed to proceed under law, therefore, for the fault of the authority, the respondent or any other person cannot be penalized. It is settled law that no one can be penalized for the fault of the authority. Reference may be made to case reported as Nasreen Akhtar & 3 others v. Sameena Bilqees & 3 others [2006 SCR 3121, wherein it has been observed as under: "....Even Otherwise, for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that the advertisement dated 25.7.2006 was issued without lawful authority, even then that was the fault of the department, not the appellants. No person can be penalized for the fault of the department."
14.The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, i.e,, the department that the post requisitioned to the Public Service Commission through letter dated 18.11.2006 was shifted back to the Department of Industries, Labour and Commerce, has no force. As we have observed in the preceding Paragraph that the summery dated 15.10.2010 submitted by the Department of Industries, Labour and Commerce for shifting back the post clearly shows that the post which sought to be shifted back is of the post which was withheld by Sardar Abdul Majeed Khan and on the promotion of the incumbent was requisitioned through letter dated 11.3.2006 for advertisement.
Moreover, as we have held earlier that once the post is requisitioned for advertisement, the requisition of the same; cannot be withdrawn by the Administrative Secretary except obtaining approval of the Government stating reasons therein. All the-proceedings conducted for shifting back of the post to the Department of Industries, Labour and Commerce are regarding the post which was requisitioned through letter dated 11.3.2006 but the requisition of the same has not been withdrawn, therefore, we concluded that the High Court has rightly held that Respondent No, 1, who secured merit position No, 2 in the merit list is entitled to be appointed against the post which fell vacant on 4.4.2006 due to the resignation of Tahir Saleem Usmani, the requisition of which to the Public Service Commission is sent on 18.11.2006. Even otherwise, the requisition of the post sent to the Public Service Commission on 18.11.2006 for advertisement remain withheld as the requisition of the same was never withdrawn by the department. Thus, to this extent we find no illegality in the impugned judgment.
15. Now, we advert to the appeal filed by Syed Khadim Hussain Bukhari & others vs. Imran Aziz Butt & others. It is alleged by the appellants, that after shifting of the post, i.e,, Assistant Director Mineral Resources to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour, they have been promoted against the post. Thus, they are aggrieved and no order can be passed adversely affecting their terms and conditions of service. It may be observed that these appellants are holding the posts on officiating basis and the officiating promotion does not confer any right for regular induction against the post. As we . have discussed in the earlier Paragraphs of the judgment that to the extent of the post which was requisitioned through requisition date' 11.03.2006, the department has not filed any appeal to that extent and the department has filed an appeal to the extent of real respondent, herein, who was declared by the High Court to be appointed against the post which fell vacant due to resignation of Tahir Saleem Usmani on 11.4.2006 and withheld by the department.
Moreover, we have concluded in the preceding Paragraphs that the department has submitted summary for shifting back the post which was sent to the Public Service Commission through requisition dated 11.03.2006 and not the post which fell vacant due to resignation of Tahir Saleem Usmani dated 11.4.2006. We have also concluded that if the post was validly shifted but under the statutory provisions, the requisition has not been withdrawn by the concerned Secretary, therefore, the post shall not be deemed to be shifted validly. Thus, on this score it may be concluded that no post from the department of Mineral Resources was shifted to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour. On this score the appellants even have no locus standi to file the instant appeal. Moreover, if any post is available or falls vacant in the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour, the appellants may approach the concerned forum for their promotion under law.
Mere holding of posts on officiating basis which was declared not validly shifted to the Department of Industries, Commerce and Labour does not confer any right to the appellant to file the instant appeal. Thus, on the score the appeal of the appellants merit dismissal.
In the light of what has been discussed above, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly passed the direction while accepting the writ petitions filed by Imran Aziz Butt and Mehtab Munir Butt. We failed to find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the High court, therefore, we decline to interfere with. Resultantly, both the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.