1. RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, ACJ. -- The titled appeal by leave of the Court has been addressed against the judgment of the High Court dated 22.1.2016, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, and another has been dismissed.
2. The summary of the facts is that the appellant herein. and another filed a writ petition before the High Court alleging therein that they being qualified as B.A. with one year Diploma of Kashmir Forest School (KFS) was inducted into the service of Azad Kashmir Logging and Sawmills Corporation (AKLASC) as Supervisor Grade-B (BPS-10) on 10.6.1986 and were promoted as Supervisor Grade-A (BPS-13) on 17.12.2003. It was stated that respondents No, 4 to 6, herein, were inducted in the service of the AKLASC department as Supervisor (BPS-10) and directly promoted in BPS-16 who are most junior to the appellant. herein, against the Departmental Rules. whereas, respondents No, 7 and 8, therein, were promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness by ignoring the qualification criterion. which was essential for promotion of Sub-Manager Sales (BPS-16). It was craved that the impugned orders passed by respondents No, 1 to 3 dated 25.3.2008. 26.4.2008, 14.3.2009. 20.10.2011 and 25.10.2011 may be set aside and the petitioners may be ordered to be promoted accordingly. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing. The written statement was filed on behalf of private respondents, whereby, the claim of the appellant was repudiated in toto. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the same has not been filed in compliance with the Rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, read with Article 87 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. vide 'impugned judgment dated 22.1.2016, hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
2. 3.Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned High Court was not justified to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the appellant is not an aggrieved person. He added that the law on the strength of which the impugned judgment has been passed has no nexus with the case in hand. He further added that the documents placed on the record by the appellant before the High Court were not denied by the other side. therefore. the principle of law applied by the learned High Court to dismiss the writ' petition was not relevant.
3. He contended that the learned High Court failed to attend the legal proposition involved in the matter in appropriate manner. He lastly argued that the judgment impugned has been passed in a hasty manner without application of judicial mind which is liable to be dismissed.
4. 4.On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Khalid Ghazi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the official respondents strongly controverted the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant. He argued that the judgment passed by the High Court is perfect, legal and in accordance with the relevant law which is not open for interference by this Court. He added that all the controversial questions involved in the matter have rightly been attended by the learned High Court and rightly came to the conclusion that the documents relied by the appellant are not admissible as evidence. He lastly submitted that the learned High Court has not committed any illegality while dismissing the writ petition, hence, the same is liable to be upheld.
5. 5.We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record made available along with the impugned judgment. The writ petition has been dismissed mainly while applying Rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, read with Article 87 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984. on the ground that the certified copies of the documents have not been annexed with the writ petition. It may be stated here that the respondents, herein, in the High Court have admitted the documents relied upon by the appellant and no objection whatsoever was raised by them, therefore, in =such scenario, we are of the view that no violation of Rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 was made. In this regard reliance may be placed on a case titled Muhammad Riaz Chohan Vs. Malik Abdul Rehman (Civil Appeal No, 274/2014, decided on 28.10.2016). wherein it has been held as follows -- 6.The next important point raised is the non-compliance of statutory provisions of Rule 32(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Procedure) Rules, 1984. The examination of the record reveals that the petitioner-appellant in writ petition has challenged the order of the appellate authority, District Judge, dated 30.5.2005 through which the appeal against the order of the Rent Controller dated 30.11.2004 has been dismissed. The certified copy of the order of the appellate authority has been furnished. whereas, only the photocopy of the order of Rent Controller dated.
6. 30.11.2004 has been annexed. The petitioner-appellant has also filed an application alongwith writ petition wherein it has been mentioned that despite application the certified copies have not been supplied. The office of the High Court has reported regarding completion of writ' petition according to rules and no objection has been raised regarding non-furnishing of the certified copies.
7. Moreover, the respondents have also not challenged the correctness of the order of the Rent Controller rather they have admitted it as correct which is a judicial order. In this state of affairs, according to celebrated principle of law the order of the subordinate forum merges into the order of the higher forum. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the appellate authority the certified copy of which has been furnished. thus,. the substantial compliance of Rule 32(2) has been made. Moreover, the office of the High Court has not raised any objection at the time of filing of writ petition, whereas, the appellant has filed an application alongwith writ petition that despite applying for the certified copy of the order dated 30.11.2004 (P-I), the same has not been furnished.
8. The correctness of this order has not been disputed by the other party, thus, according to the principle of law enunciated by this Court in a number of cases including Shahida Khadim Vs. Secretary Education and others (2002 SCR 315) that when in fact a document is admitted by the other party in that case the writ petition cannot be dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of Rule 32(2). This view has been upheld by this Court in a recent full Court judgment delivered in the case titled Messrs Friends Technical Engineering & others Vs. Barrister Iftikhar Gillani and others (Civil Appeal No, 305/2014 decided on 18.4.2016). It has been observed in paragraph 6 as follows.-- '6.While attending the other ' objection regarding non-annexing of certified copies of the documents alongwitli the writ petitions, it may be stated that the documents annexed with the writ petitions are admitted by the other party and it is settled principle of law that the documents once admitted by a party cannot be objected later on by the passage of time. The appellants, herein, in the High Court have admitted the documents relied upon by the respondents. herein, and no objection whatsoever was raised by them, therefore in such scenario, we are of the view that no violation of Rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 was made. Same like proposition came under consideration of this Court in a case reported as Shahida Khadim v. Secretary- Education AJ&K and 5 others (2002 SCR 315), wherein this Court has observed as under:-- '9.The High Court mainly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that only photostat copies of documents have been placed on record by the appellant and even the attested copy of appointment order of respondent No, 3 was not placed on record by the appellant. To substantiate the above contention the learned counsel for respondent No, 3, Ch. Muhammad Riaz Alam.submitted that under Rule 32(2) of the AJ&K High Court Procedure Rules.
9. 1984. it has been provided as under:-- '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 annexes, if any in addition to separate copy for each one of the respondents. The annexures accompanying the petition shall be marked numerically in red ink by the petitioner and the petition shall be properly indexed The above contention raised by the learned counsel for respondent No 3 is correct that the copy of the impugned order as provided under the High Court Procedure Rules must be attached but the position is totally different when the bereavements made by the appellant andthe documents relied upon by her are admitted from the opposite side. In the Instant case the appellant's assertion that she stood first in the test andinterview in accordance with the merit list stands admitted by the respondents.Similarly after the appointment of appellant, the appointment of respondent No, 3 also stands admitted by the respondents. In such a situation it was not necessary on the part of the appellant to attach with the writ petition the attested copies of the documents especially so when the some were admitted by the respondents.'
10. Even otherwise, it appears from the record that the documents annexed with the writ petition titled Barrister lftikhar Ali Gillani and others v. Messrs Friends. Technical Engineering Association are duly attested. As through both the writ petitions, notification dated 12.12:2012, was challenged, therefore, dismissal of one writ petition on the ground of non-filing of the certified copies will bring no fruits when the other writ petition on the same subject was filed while annexing duly certified copies For the above-stated reasons the objection of non-furnishing the certified copies, in view of peculiar facts of this case, has no substance. Therefore, the objection is overruled."
11. In light of the principle of law enunciated by this Court in the cases .supra, we are in agreement that the findings of the learned High Court that the writ petition has not been filed while complying with Rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules. 1984, coupled with Article 87 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984, is not in accordance with the law. The other finding of the High Court that the appellant does not come within the purview of the aggrieved person is also premature as the case has not been decided on merit. The finding could have been recorded after taking into account the evidence produced by the parties which has not been done, therefore, it can safely be said that the findings recorded by the learned High Court while dismissing the writ petition are not sustainable. On the basis of what has been discussed above, we are constrained to accept this appeal while remanding the case to the High Court for deciding the same afresh on merit. No order as to costs.