1. ' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 15.12.2015, whereby the learned High Court disposed of different writ petitions with some directions.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant, herein, filed Writ Petition No,2426 of 2015, through which she challenged the nomination of respondents Nos.4 and 5, therein, against the seats reserved for the residents of Leepa Valley. It was claimed by her that she obtained her education from the local schools and college of Leepa Valley throughout her educational career. In pursuance of advertisement dated 22.08.2015, she appeared in the entry test conducted on 04.10.2015 and qualified the same. The Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has issued policy notification dated 17.04.2014, which was challenged before the High Court through another writ petition. The learned High Court while deciding the said writ petition vide judgment dated 10.11.2014, has recorded the findings that notification dated 17.04.2014, shall be applicable to the onward the session 2015-16. The said judgment of the High Court has not been challenged which has attained finality. It was contended that in view of the notification dated 17.04.2014, respondents Nos.4 and 5, therein, are not entitled to be nominated against the seats reserved for Leepa Valley, because both of them have not got their education of intermediate from the local institution of Leepa rather they got their education from Muzaffarabad, wherein they are residing along with their families. Respondent No,4, herein, also filed Writ Petition No,2433 of 2015 through which she challenged condition No,iii(a), of the advertisement dated 22.08.2015, on the ground that she has passed her F.Sc. examination in the year 2013 and has participated in the entry test conducted by the University of Health Sciences, Lahore on 04.10.2015, for admission in Medical Colleges of Azad Jammu and Kashmir as well as Pakistan against the seat reserved for Leepa Valley. Thus, condition No,iii(a) of the advertisement is against her accrued right. The learned High Court consolidated the aforesaid writ petitions with some other writ petitions and disposed of the same vide judgment dated 15.12.2015 with some directions to the concerned authorities. Now .the appellant feeling aggrieved from direction No,2, issued in the operative part of the impugned judgment, approached this Court, through instant appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Miss Bilqees Rashid Minhas, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that direction No,2 issued by the learned High Court in the operative part of the impugned judgment is against the dictum laid down by the High Court in its previous judgment delivered in a case titled Anas Mumtaz and others v. Joint Admission Committee and others, decided on 10.11.2014. She added that respondent No,4, herein, completed her F.Sc. education in the year 2013 and participated in the entry test, but did not qualify the same. After becoming unsuccessful, she got admission in B.Sc. in Government Fatima Jinnah Postgraduate College for Women, Muzaffarabad.
2. In continuation of the arguments, she added that after getting the education of B.Sc., respondent No,4 reappeared in the entry test conducted in 2015 and passed the same. Basically, the purpose of the entry test is assessm ent of the students of F.Sc. level to get "grains from the chaff". Thus, after getting higher degree, respondent No,4 has waived her right to get the admission in the medical college. She further added that respondent No,4, herein, did not approach the High Court with clean hands as she concealed the material facts from the Court, therefore, she was not entitled to any sort of relief. In this way, the learned High Court erred in law while accepting her prayer. She strongly argued that respondent No,4 admittedly got the admission in B.Sc. in the year 2013 and not applied for admission in medical college, therefore, she cannot be considered for admission in the medical college on the basis of entry test conducted in 2015. In continuation of the arguments, she submitted that the judgment of the High Court delivered in Anas Mumtaz's case (supra) has not been challenged which has attained finality. In paragraph 7 of the referred judgment, the learned High Court has categorically held that policy notification dated 17.04.2014, shall be applicable to those candidates who will apply for their nomination against the seats reserved for under developed areas for the session 2015-16. In this way, the direction No,2 issued by the learned High Court in the impugned judgment is contrary to the earlier view expressed in the Anas Mumtaz's case. She maintained that according to the notification dated 17.04.2014, and advertisement dated 22.08.2015, only those candidates are eligible for nomination who completed their education up to intermediate level from the local institutions of Leepa Valley. Respondent No,4, has not completed her education from the local institutions of Leepa, therefore, in the light of aforesaid policy and advertisement, she is not eligible for nomination against the seats reserved for Leepa.
3. 4.Kh. Imtiaz Ahmed, Advocate, the learned counsel for respondent No,4 strongly opposed the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the appellant. He submitted that the impugned judgment is perfect and legal which is not open for interference by this Court. He submitted that admittedly respondent No,4 passed her F.Sc. examination prior to the issuance of notification dated 17.04.2014, therefore, she is fully eligible to be considered for the admission against the seats reserved for Leepa Valley as she qualified the entry test held in the year 2015. He submitted that the merit for admission in the medical colleges is determined on the strength of the results of Metric and F.Sc., therefore, higher qualification does not debar to get admission in the medical college. He further submitted that Anas Mumtaz's case (supra) upon which the learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress is not applicable to the case of the respondent. He has relied upon the case reported as Abdul Shakoor v. Mrs. Shamim Khalid and 5 others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 7.
4. 5.Sardar Shahid Hameed Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 3 only submitted that the nomination of respondent No,4 has been made in the light of the judgment of the learned High Court dated 15.12.2015.
5. 5A. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record along with the impugned judgment. In the case in hand, the appellant is satisfied from the impugned judgment except direction No,2, issued by the High Court in operative part of the judgment. It will be useful to reproduce here the said direction of the High Court which reads as under:-- "2. In view of reply of Chairman Joint Admission Committee no embargo is placed on the nomination of the candidates who have passed their F.Sc. prior to the issuance of notification dated 17.04.2014, therefore, if any student who falls in this category and has applied he shall be considered against the special seats."
6. ' It is pertinent to mention here that a notification with regard to the nomination against the special seats reserved for the residents of Leepa and Neelum was issued by the Government on 17.04.2014. The said notification was challenged before the High Court through writ petition titled Anas Mumtaz and others v. Joint Admission Committee and others (No,2164 of 2014 decided on 10.11.2014). The learned High Court while delivering the judgment in Anas Mumtaz's case (supra) has recorded the following findings in para 14 of the judgment:-- "It is well settled law that Government has the powers to issue policy/rules for regulation of the admission in the various institutions and can also amend such policy. The notification under challenge has been issued in exercise of these powers. In my estimation condition No,1 in the notification dated 17.04.2014 has rightly been inserted in the policy issued on 05.11.2009 because the purpose for reservation of the seats for an under developed area is to increase the rate of education in that area and to bring the candidates in the main stream as has been held in the judgment referred to and relied upon by Sardar Shahid Hameed Khan, the learned Advocate for the, respondents."
7. ' The learned High Court in para 15 of the judgment (supra), has further held that:-- "....The notification has been issued on 17.04.2014 the date on which the schedule for examination for the next year was issued. The settled law is that a notification cannot operate retrospectively when it affects the vested right of a citizens. A notification also was prospective in nature therefore, it will come into force from the date of its publication i,e, 13.10.2014 and will be applicable to those candidates who will apply for their nomination against the reserved seats for under developing area for the session 2015-16."
8. After going through the above direction/ findings recorded by the High Court, it is crystal clear that the learned High Court has taken the contradictory view as on one hand the learned High Court has held in Anas Mumtaz's case (supra) that notification dated 17.04.2014, shall be applicable for nomination against the seats reserved for under developed area for the sessions 2015-16, whereas, on the other hand in the impugned judgment the learned High Court issued the direction that no embargo is placed on the nomination of the candidates who passed their F.Sc. prior to the issuance of the notification dated 17.04.2014. In the notification dated 17.04.2014, a condition has been imposed that only those candidates will be eligible for nomination against the seats reserved for Neelum and Leepa Valley, who completed their Intermediate education as a regular student from the local institutions of the areas. For better appreciation the relevant portion of the notification (supra) is reproduced here which reads as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The learned counsel for respondent No,4 has forcefully submitted that the notification dated 17.04.2014, is prospective in nature, therefore, the same is not applicable in the case of respondent as she passed her F.Sc. Exam. in the year 2013. We agree with the argument of the learned counsel that a notification or an executive order can only operate prospectively and not retrospectively unless specially provided otherwise. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the case reported as Hashwani Hotels Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others [PLD 1997 SC 315], wherein it has been held that:-- "16. Reverting to the question, whether such a direction can affect the load agreements which were already concluded prior to such direction, it may be observed that it is a well-settled principle of interpretation of a notification and/or an executive order that the same can operate prospectively and not retrospectively. This principle is equally applicable to a statute in the absence of any express or implied intendment contrary to it."
9. ' Similarly, in a case reported as Abdul Shakoor v. Mrs. Shamim Khalid and 5 others 2004 PLC (C.S.)
10. 7, this Court observed as under:-- "11. It follows that the disputed notification which is shown to have been read retrospectively could not be taken into consideration for the above reasons as the process of selection in respect of receiving applications according to qualifications determined for it had already completed. Therefore, it could not be read restrospectively for having not been so provided by. law-givers."
11. As the learned counsel has himself admitted that the notification dated 17.04.2014, will be operate prospectively, therefore, it can safely be said that notification (supra) is fully applicable for session 2015-16, and no one can be nominated in violation of the conditions imposed in that notification. In this way, the case law referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No,4 is not helpful to the case of respondent No,4, rather the same supports the version of the appellant.
6. It may also be observed here that the learned High Court in Anas Mumtaz's case (supra) decided on 10.11.2014, has declared that the notification dated 17.04.2014, is correct to the extent of condition No,1 and shall apply to the session 2015-16. This judgment has neither reviewed by the High Court nor challenged before this Court by any person within the stipulated period of limitation, therefore, the same has attained finality. The relief claimed by respondent No,4, herein, through writ petition titled Haseena Saddiqi v. Joint Admission Committee and others (No,2433 of 20105 decided on 15.12.2015), amounts to challenge the judgment (supra) of the High Court which has attained finality. Thus, in our estimation, the learned High Court was not justified to grant the claimed relief to respondent No,4, herein, contrary to its own judgment which has attained finality.
12. ' Resultantly, this appeal is accepted and direction No,2, issued by the learned High Court in the operative part of the impugned judgment is hereby quashed and the nominations if any made in the light of this direction are set aside. No order as to the costs.