Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, J.-- The titled appeals by leave of the Court have been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 16.12.2016, whereby the separate writ petitions filed by the appellants, Ch. Latif Akbar and others, have been dismissed.
2. The facts leading to the instant litigation are that in pursuance of joint declaration dated 16.09.201 1, a Committee was constituted vide notification dated 16.02.2012 and on its recommendations the National Education Policy , 2009 was adapted in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir with the name and style as "Kashm ir Education Policy" (hereinafter to be referred as Education Policy) vide notification dated 31.12.2012. To achieve the desired targets of the Education Policy , the bulk of share in the funds was to be provided by the Federal Government but due to financial constraints, it was refused. The Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir imposed and enhanced the rates of some taxes vide AJ&K Finance Act, 2015 to achieve the said target from its own resources. The Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education (Schools) sent a proposal to the Finance Department for upgradation of different institutions and creation of new posts. The Finance Department agreed for creation of 1037 posts at school level and 437 posts at college level. On 16.11.2015, the Finance Department wrote a letter to the Secretary Higher Education that the Finance Division of Pakistan has not sanctioned for creation of new posts because the estimated target through imposed taxes could not be achieved. The Cabinet in its meeting held on 25.11.2015 (notified on 30.11.2015) considered the aforesaid letter of the Secretary Finance and while overruling the view of the Finance Department, directed the Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education as well as Secretary Higher Education to proceed further for impleme ntation of the Education Policy . The institutions were upgraded, the posts were created and on 26.11.2015 the Secretaries Elementary and Secondary Education and Higher Education also issued separate notifications in the light of their proposals. The decision of the Cabinet dated 25.11.2015 and the notifications issued on 26.11.2015 were challenged by Muhammad Akhtar and others by filing writ petition No. 303/2016 before the High Court which was dismissed on 31.03.2016. The judgment of the High Court was upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 20.05.2016.
3. After commencement of General Elections, 2016 the new political party formed its government. The Cabinet in its meeting held on 25.08.2016 decided to revisit the Education Policy . To implement the decision of the Cabinet vide notification dated 02.09.2016 a Committee was constituted to revisit the Education Pakage-2015 keeping in view the genuine requirements. The Committee had to submit its recommendations in the next Cabinet meeting. In the next meeting held on 06.10.2016, the Cabinet decided to stop the implementation of the Education Policy while approving the recommendations of sub-Committee. Thereafter , the notification dated 21.10.2016 was issued for implementation of the above decision of the Cabinet. The appellants No. 1 to 3 are renowned political workers and they have held the offices of Ministers during the period when the Education Policy was adapted and steps were taken for its implementation, whereas, appellants No.4 to 9 are the persons the children of whom were admitted in the upgraded institutions. The other appellants are the students admitted in upgraded Schools and Colleges. They filed three separate writ petitions in the High Court while challenging the Cabinet decisions dated 25.08.2016 and 06.10.2016. The notification dated 21.10.2016 was also challenged through amended writ petition. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings dismissed all the writ petitions while holding that the Government is empowered to frame any policy or take decision and also entitled to revisit the same in the public interest. The Government was also directed to take up each and every case separately and not in a rolled-up manner while revisiting the Education Policy. Both the parties have challenged the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment of the High Court.
4. The titled contempt application has been filed for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against Shahid Mohi-ud-Din and others for violation of status quo orders issued by this Court on 21.12.2016 and 10.01.2017.
5. Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for appellants No.1 to 9, Ch. Latif Akbar & others, stated detailed facts and past litigation history and specially referred to the previous judgment of this Court relating to the Education Policy and Education Package. According to his version the Government after following all the rules and regulations enforced the Education Package according to spirit of the Education Policy. He submitted that it is the basic duty of the Government to provide infrastructure and facilities for education, specially, in the remote areas. Keeping in view the public interest, the educational institutions were upgraded and other relevant steps were taken. The whole package in shape of budget demand was placed before the Legislative Assembly (hereinafter to be referred as "Assembly"). The Assembly after detailed deliberation, keeping in view the Education Package, also approved the budget and the AJ&K Finance Act, 2015. The Budget book Volume-II (Part- IV) specially relates to the Education Package and contains the details of creation of posts, upgraded educational institutions etc. He submitted that the Education Package is not mere an administrative step rather it has been merged into the Budget passed by the Assembly , thus, it is an act of the Assembly . He further submitted that as a result of General Elections the political party who was previously in power has been changed and the new political party came into power . Merely on the political basis the Government is intended to roll-back the whole Education Policy against the public interest. Initially , the decision was taken in the Cabinet meeting. The committee was constituted vide notification dated 02.09.2016 to revisit the Education Package and submit its recommendations keeping in view the genuine requirements. It is amazing that the proceedings of the Committee were not completed and next meeting was fixed for 21.12.2016. The respondents while ignoring their own taken steps without completion of the report of the Committee, once again considered the matter in the Cabinet meeting held on 06.10.2016 and took the decision thereof. The appellants and some other persons filed writ petitions against the illegal act of the Government. The learned High Court issued interim injunction on 17.10.2016, but despite this a notification for rolling back the whole Education Package was issued on 21.10.2016 which has was challenged through the amended writ petition. The learned High Court has not properly appreciated the important legal and factual propositions raised in the petitions, specially, the AJ&K Finance Act, 2015 and the budget passed by the Assembly. He further argued that the reliance placed by the learned High Court on section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 is also against the enunciated principle of law as the Education Package was approved by the Assembly, therefore, the Government was not vested with the power to take action under the garb of section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897. According to the universally celebrated principle of law, once final decisive step has been taken the legal rights are accrued to the concerned and thereafter the powers under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be exercised. He further argued that the learned High Court has misconceived that it is mere a matter of policy making. No doubt the Government can formulate the policy but when a policy is placed before the Assembly, its features are approved in shape of Finance Act and Budget, thousands of students are admitted in the educational institutions, hundreds of civil servants of education department are appointed by promotion and posting and the legal rights are accrued in favour of such persons, thereafter it is no more a policy decision rather the same becomes constitutionally guaranteed fundamental and legal rights of thousan ds of state subjects. He referred to the cases reported as Nazir Ahmad vs. Pakistan and others [PLD 1970 SC 453], Messrs. Radaka Corporation and others vs. Collector of Customs and another [1989 SCMR 353] and Star Textile Mills Ltd. Vs. Pakistan and others [1999 MLD 3001 ].
6. Sardar Abdul Hameed Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel representing the students and other appellants (Nos.10 to 262) while adopting the arguments of Barrister Huamyun Nawaz Khan, Advocate, further added that the steps taken by the Government are not only illegal but very harsh amounting to destroy the career of thousands of students. He submitted that it is well-known to everyone that in the Government schools/colleges only those students get admissions whose parents cannot afford the expenditures of education in the private institutions.
Thousands of the students have got admission in the upgraded institutions but due to roll-back of the Education Package their career will be spoiled and their vested legal rights will be badly affected. In a civilized constitutional society , such powers are not vested in the Government. So far as the contention of the Government that alternate arrangements have been made, is concerned, it is against reality. The children of the poor state subjects cannot afford boarding to study in the institutions situated far away from their residences. In fact, rolling back the Education Package is violation of the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights of such sourceless state subjects and their children. The impugned act taken by the respondents amounts to violation of the constitutional provisions as well as enforced law but the learned High Court has not properly considered all these aspects of the matter and far-reaching effects of the impugned act of the Government, thus, while accepting the appeal and modifying the impugned judgment of the High Court the relief prayed for by the petitioners in their writ petitions be granted in toto.
7. Both the learned counsel while opposing the appeal filed on behalf of the Azad Government and others submitted that without discussion on merits of the case, the appeal on the face of it is incompetent for non-arraying all the necessary parties. Through the impugned judgment the learned High Court has not only decided the writ petition No.2694/2016 but two other writ petitions bearing Nos. 2805 filed by 176 petitioners and 2867 of 2016 filed by 93 petitioners, have also been decided. They are real aggrieved persons because due to enforcement of Education Package vested legal rights have been accrued in their favour but in the appeal filed by the Azad Government only the parties impleaded in writ petition No.2694/2016 have been arrayed. According to the celebrated principle of law no one can be condemned unheard. Through the impugned judgment the learned High Court granted partial relief to the petitioners (in writ petitions Nos.2805 and 2867 of 2016) but they have not been arrayed as parties, thus, the appeal filed on behalf of the Azad Government is not maintainable on this sole ground and is liable to be dismissed.
8. Conversely , Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the official respondents in appeal No. 7/2017 and for the appellants in appeal No.22/2017 admitted that in the appeal filed by the Azad Government only the parties impleaded in writ petition No.2649/2016 have been arrayed, whereas, the petitioners of other two writ petitions have not been arrayed. According to his version it makes no difference and despite this the appeal is maintainable as all the writ petitions have been disposed of through single consolidated judgment, thus, the decision in one writ petition will be deemed the decision in other petitions also. However , if for the sake of arguments the appeal of the Azad Government is not found competent even then the Azad Government has right to defend the appeal filed against it.
9. The learned counsel for the Azad Government, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, raised objection regarding the competency of writ petition as well as appeal filed before this Court by the appellants, Ch. Latif Akbar and others, on the ground that the appellants are not aggrieved person and they have got no locus standi to file writ petition or appeal before this Court. The writ petition was also not maintainable due to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Rule 32(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Procedure) Rules, 1984 as the petitioners, therein, failed to furnish the certified copies of the impugned orders therein. He submitted that the latest full Court judgment on this proposition has been delivered in the case reported as Tanveer Fatima vs. Divisional Director Schools & others [2016 SCR 714], thus, the findings of the High Court on these two points are also against law .
10. While arguing on merits, he discussed the detailed history of the case and referred to the notification dated 31.12.2012 through which the National Education Policy has been adapted in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir. He submitted that according to the Education Policy the steps have to be taken priority-wise and the top priority is the strengthening of existing educational institutions. The Government on the basis of report of the Committee, after detailed deliberation, has taken the steps in the public interest. He submitted that no doubt, according to the constitutional provisions the ultimate authority lies with the Assembly. Actually, all the steps taken by the Government are pre-requisite for laying the matter before the Assembly for its final decision under the provisions of section 38 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The matter shall ultimately be finalized by the Assembly . The impugned steps were nece ssary in this regard, therefore, no violation of law has been committed by the Government. According to the statutory provisions, the formulation of the policy and creation of institutions is the prerogative of the Government. In this regard, the High Court has righty obser ved that the matter of furnishing of policy falls within the domain of the Government and no interference is permissible. The grievance of the Government is only for quashment of the direction issued by the the learned High Court in the impugned judgment.
While justifying the steps taken by the Government he also referred to the documents containing the details of the upgraded institutions, shortcoming of the building and staff in the already establi shed institutions, the number of students etc. He also referred to the list of the institutions and submitted that in case of rolling back of Education Package, the students will alternatively be accommodated without charging any additional fee. He submitted that the appeal filed against the Government is not competent, therefore, the same be dismissed with costs while quashing the direction issued by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record made available. First of all we would like to determine the question of maintainability of appeal titled Azad Govt. & others vs. Ch. Latif Akbar and others (C. Appeal No. 22/2017). The relief prayed for by the appellants is very relevant in this context which reads as follows:- "It is therefore, most respectfully submi tted that Petition for Leave to Appeal may kindly be granted and by converting the same into an Appeal, the Judgment of the High Court dated 16.12.2016 may kindly be modified/vacated to the extent that the Respondent were not agggrived persons in the eye of law and that while filing the Writ Petition the Respondents have violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 32(2) of High Court Procedure Rules and that the direction issued by the High Court was beyond the scope of the jurisdictional competence of the High Court. Any other relief admissible under law may also be granted."
Through the impugned judgment the learned High Court jointly decided three writ petitions bearing Nos.2694, 2805 and 2867 of 2016. The appellants, Azad Govt. & others, have only challenged the impugned judgment to the extent of writ petition No.2694 titled Ch. Latif Akbar and others vs. Azad Govt . & others. They failed to array the persons who were petitioners before the High Court in the other two writ petitions. Most of them are students who have got admission in the institutions established under the Education Package and some of them are the parents of the students, thus, they are the beneficiaries of the Education Package. If for the sake of arguments the writ petition No.2694/2016 is presumed incompetent even then the impugned judgment will hold field because the other two writ petitions have been decided through the same judgment. The appellants have not arrayed the petitioners of other two writ petitions who are beneficiaries of the Education Package as well as the impugned judgment which cannot be reversed in absence of such necessary parties. The objection raised by the counsel for the respondents prevails and it is held that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the impugned judgment the appeal titled Azad Govt. & others vs. Ch. Latif Akbar and others (C. Appeal No.22/2017) being not maintainable, is dismissed.
12. Now, we would like to attend the objection raised by Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Government regarding non compliance of mandatory provisions of Rule 32(2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court (Procedure) Rules, 1984. According to his version the petitioners failed to furnish the required certified copies of the impugned orders, hence, the writ petition was not maintainable. In this regard he placed reliance on the case reported as Tanveer Fatima vs. Divisional Director Schools & others [2016 SCR 714] and submitted that it is the latest full Court judgment on the subject. When he was confronted whether the documents attached with the writ petition are forged or their contents are denied by the respondents, he replied that neither the documents are forged nor their contents have been denied, however , due to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules the writ petitions are not maintainable. No doubt under the provisions of Rule 32(2) of the High Court Procedure Rules furnishing of certified copies of the impugned order is required but there are some exceptions to this rule. This Court has enunciated the principle of law that when the documents are admitted by the other side, the requirement of furnishing the certified copies is no more required. This proposition came under consideration in a full Court judgment titled Messrs. Friends Technical Engineering & others vs. Barrister Iftikhar Gillani and others (Civil Appeal No. 305/2014 decided on 18.04.2016), wherein it has been held as follows:- "6.While attending the other objection regarding non-annexing of certified copies of the documents along with 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 atteste d 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, 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 verifyin g the facts relied on, a certified copy of the impugned order and at least two copies thereof including annexures, 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 averments made by the appellant and the 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 and interview 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."
Same like, this principle has also been followed in another case titled Muhammad Riaz Chohan vs. Malik Abdul Rehman and others (Civil Appeal No. 274/2014 decided on 28.10.2016). In another latest judgment delivered in the case titled Imtiaz Ahmed and another vs. Senior Superintendent Police and others (Civil Appeal No. 85 of 2016 decided on 22.12.2016) this proposition has been 44considered from another angle that such requirement must be determined at the time of filing the writ petition before its admission for regular hearing and once the writ petition is admitted for regular hearing and notices are issued to the other parties, thereafter, Rule 38 of High Court Procedure Rules comes into operation which empowers the High Court to pass any order as deemed fit or follow such procedure as may appear to it to be just. The relevant part of the said judgment reads as follows:- "5. According to the scheme of Rules, 1984 the proceedings in the writ petition have to be conducted gradually and step-wise. It appears that the requirement of furnishing certified copy under Rule 32(2) relates to the stage of presentation of the writ petition and once in writ petition the notices are issued to the parties and thereafter the writ petition is admitted for regular hearing, the matter of furnishing certified copy is over.
Thereafter, Rule 38 comes into operation which empowers the High Court to pass any order as deemed fit or follow such procedure as may appear to it to be just. In this case, although the certified copy was not furnished by the petitioners but neither at the stage of presentation of writ petition this deficiency was pointed out nor the learned Judge at two stages i.e., at the time of issuing notices for pre-admission comments and at the time of admission of writ petition for regular hearing, dismissed the writ petition on this ground. Thereafter , when the authenticity of the document was admitted by the respondents and the certified copy of the impugned FIR was also available, dismissal of writ petition on this sole ground does not appear to be just. Under Rule 38, keeping in view the important role of the High Court in relation to writ jurisdiction the High Court is not chained with strict rules rather it is empowered to liberally adopt or follow the procedure for determination of questions on such other evidence and in such manner as may appear to it to be just. The basic purpose is to exercise the powers for ends of justice and not technically knocking out the party which may result into miscarriage of justice. "
So far as the principle of law laid down in the case reported as Tanveer Fatima vs. Divisional Director Schools & others [2016 SCR 714], is concerned, it has been misconstrued by the counsel for the respondents as the case basically relates to the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1977. Even in that judgment the previous opinion of the Court regarding dismissal of the appeals due to non-fur nishing of certified copies of the impugned orders has been reviewed and exceptions and conditions for dismissal of appeals on this ground have been mentioned. In this case the impugned documents are the Government notifica tions which have been admitted and also relied upon by the respondents, thus, in this state of af fairs the objection being weightless stands repelled.
13. So far as the other objection regarding the status of petitioners in writ petition No.2694/2016, is concerned, in our considered view after submission of the written statement by the respondents before the High Court this proposition requires no further deliberation. In view of the averments made in the preliminary objection (C) the petitioners (therein) appear to be aggrieved parties because the respondents have themselves mentioned the interest of the petitioners relating to the subject-matter and also discussed the conduct of the petitioners. Even otherwise, after dismissal of the appeal filed by the Azad Government, it remains mere academic discussion as the other appellants (petitioners in other two writ petitions) are beneficiaries of the Education Package and they are aggrieved persons by all means, thus, mere for mere academic discussion no deliberation on this point is required.
14. Now, we would like to attend the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants who stressed for grant of prayed relief in toto. The prayed clause of their appeal is reproduced as follows:- "Therefore, it is prayed that leave to appeal may kindly be granted against judgment dated 16.12.2016, passed by Honourable High Court in Writ Petition No.2694/2016 and by converting the same into a regular appeal, the judgment dated 16.12.2016 passed by the Honorable High Court in Writ Petition No.2694/2016 and in connected writ petitions No. 2805/2016 and 2867/2016 may kindly be set aside by declaring same as illegal and consequently writ petition No.2694/2016 before High Court be accepted, in the best interest of justice. Any other relief for which the petitioners are entitled may also be granted.
15. For resolution of this proposition the appreciation of the background of issue will be beneficial. According to the averments and pleadings of the parties and record, the Education Package was approved by the Government and consequently for its implementation the Legislative Assembly has provided the budget. The upgraded institutions and the created posts have been approved initially in the Budget for the year 2015-16 and for current year 2016-17. According to the scheme of law, the Budget is the statement of estimated receipts and expenditure approved by the Assembly, thus, the argument advanced on behalf of the Government that for implementation of the Education Package there is shortage of funds, cannot be accepted in presence of the Budget approved by the Assembly for the year 2016-17. The examination of the record reveals that after commencement of the General Elections and formation of new Government, for taking policy decision, the cabinet constituted a committee for determination of genuine requirements of the Education Package. It appears that the committee partially considered the matter and for further consideration the next meeting was to be held on 21.12.2016, however, before that the matter was once again considered by the Cabinet and the decisions (notified vide notification dated 06.10.2016) have been taken. It appears that the Committee has not completed its task. Moreover, the mandate of the Committee to determine the genuine requirements also requires case to case examination. No doubt it is the prerogative of the Government to take administrative steps and formulate the policy but while formulating the policy the Government cannot ignore the public interest and rights accrued to the state subjects or beneficiaries of any enforced policy. The authority of the Government to shift the posts, establish the institutions, organize the departments or reorganize the same is provided under the Statute. In this regard this Court has already enunciated the principle of law in the case reported as Muhammad Akhtar and others vs. Azad Govt. & others [2016 SCR 853] that the Courts are not supposed to interfere in the domain of other institutions. However, as in this case it is argued on behalf of the Government that the steps taken are preparatory to lay down the matter before the Assembly for decision and supplementary budget under the provisions of section 38 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974. In this regard this Court has also observed in Akhtar Hussain's case (supra) as follows:- ".... The bare reading of this statutory provision clearly speaks that the Government shall have power to authorize expenditure from the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Consolidated Fund and shall cause to be laid before the Assembly a Budget or, as the case may be, and excess Budget, setting the amount of that expenditure. Thus, it is clear that the matters of expending amount from Consolidated Fund to meet the insuf ficiency of the allocated funds or providing some new service not included in the Annual Budget, subject to the condition that the expenditure shall be laid before the Assembly as a Budget ; fall within the domain of the Governme nt.Even otherwise, according to the constitutional spirit, specially , sub-section (3) of section 12 of Act, 1974, the Government consists of Prime Minister and the Ministers who are collectively responsible to the Assembly . The Constitution clearly provides more effective representative exalted forum to attend all the issues and take necessary steps to make the decisions.
10. Under the trichotomy of powers and Constitutional scheme, the Courts are not supposed to interfere in the domain of other institutions or authorities unless they travel beyond their constitutional or legal domain. As in the instant case, the issues raised in the writ petition clearly within fall the domain of the Government and Legislative Assembly , thus the Courts cannot pre-empt or interfere in their domain."
No doubt under the provisions of section 12 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974 the executive authority of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be exercised in the name of the President by the Gove rnment, consisting of the Prime Minister and Ministers but there is no provision that any matter which falls within the domain of Executive or Government, cannot be laid down before the Assembly . Under the provisions of sub section (3) of section 12 of the Interim Constitution Act, 1974 the Prime Minister and the Ministers are collectively responsible to the Assembly . As the Government itself has opted for laying down the matter before the Assembly , thus, in this state of affairs it becomes irrelevant to ponder over the propositions argued and raised on both sides. According to the constitutional scheme the Government is answerable before the Assembly and the Assembly is vested with the powers to approve or disapprove any policy or make laws etc. subject to constitutionally provided limitations.
16. The appellants have seriously objecte d to the proceedings of the Committee (constituted vide notification dated 02.09.2016), whereas, the respondents also relied upon the report of the Committee to justify their acts. The report of the Committee is an admitted document, the examination of which reveals that on behalf of the respondents the matter has been dealt with in a hasty manner . According to this report the second meeting of the Committee was held on 08.09.2016, whereas, the first meeting was held on 31.08.2016 and the next meeting was to be held 21.12.2016. According to the record, the said Committee was constituted vide notification dated 02.09.2016 but amazingly , as mentioned in the report, its meeting was held prior to its constitution i.e. on 31.08.2016. It has been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the report as follows:- {{URDU TEXT}} According to the report the Committee has taken the following decision: {{URDU TEXT}} It is clearly proved that the Committee has not completed its task and the next meeting was fixed to be held on 21.12.2016. Thus, it appears that without completion of process and final report of the Committee the matter was considered by the Cabinet in its meeting held on 06.10.2016 and the final steps have been notified vide notification dated 21.10.2016. According to the respondents' own produced and relied record it is proved that on one hand the meeting of the Committee was held prior to its constitution and on the other hand the Committee has not completed its task and fixed the next meeting for 21.12.2016 but despite this the Cabinet has taken the decision and in furtherance of same issued notification dated 21.10.2016 which appears to be complete roll-back of the Education Package. The manner adopted by the Government does not appear to be proper, legal and in accordance with the principle of good governance. When the Committee was constituted, the Cabinet should have wait till final recommendations of the Committee. Be that as it may, as the counsel for the respondents has repeatedly argued that these steps are not final rather just pre-requirements to lay the matter before the Assembly for approval of the policy and supplementary budget according to the provisions of section 38 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, thus, no further deliberation is required in this context.
17. In the light of above stated background and reasons we have no hesitation in holding that without completion of the mandate of the constituted Committe e the decision taken in the Cabinet meeting held on 06.10.2016 and the notification issued on 21.10.2016 is not a proper course. As the Government has opted for laying the matter before the Assembly , therefore, the whole issue has to be attended and decided by the Assembly . In this background, the notification dated 21.10.2016 is declared inef fective and inoperative.
18. With the above decision the appeal titled Ch. Latif Akbar & others vs. Azad Govt. & others (Civil Appeal No. 07/17) stands disposed of.
So far as the matter of contempt proceedings is concerned, as this Court has already issued a direction to the respondents for taking necessary steps to ensure that none of the students who have been admitted in the upgraded institutions of Education Package be deprived of participation in the examination. As the appeals have been decided with the result of declaring the notification dated 21.10.2016 as ineffective and inoperative, therefore, while re-affirming the already issued direction the concerned are further directed to ensure compliance of the Court' s direction in letter and spirit.