Arguments heard. The petitioners in the supra titled writ petition were appointed as Section Clerks in Services and General Administration Department (S&GAD) of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, vide different orders. They were later on promoted as Assistants B-14 on officiating basis, vide different orders attached with the writ petition as annexure A/1 to A/8. The petitioners claim that they have been promoted as Assistants B-14 on the basis of seniority, which has been attached as annexure "A" with the writ petition. Secretary S&GAD advertised some posts of Assistants B-14 for direct recruitment on temporary basis, vide advertisement in Daily Jinnah dated 21.01.2010. It has been explained that advertised posts fell vacant on temporary basis because of some officials having been posted ex-cadre. It is the claim of the petitioners that private non-petitioners were appointed on temporary basis against lien of some Assistants and it was clearly mentioned in the orders of their appointment that their orders are temporary in nature. Grievance of the petitioners commenced when an application by some of the non-petitioners was moved to Chief Secretary for their confirmation against 33% quota reserved for initial recruitment. The applicants contended that they have been appointed after advertising the posts and were recruited through the same batch. It was further contended that senior most Assistants have been promoted as Superintendent B-16 and some of them have been promoted as Section Officer on officiating basis as well. The petitioners are of the view that appointments of the private non-petitioners are not in accordance with law and they have no right to be confirmed against the posts of Assistants B-14.
On the other hand, the petitioners have contended that they are regular employees of the S&GAD who have already been promoted as Assistants B-14 on officiating basis in accordance with the seniority list. The petitioners claim that they have a right to be considered for further promotion on the basis of their seniority. It is the apprehension of the petitioners that if the private non- petitioners are confirmed against the same posts, their rights would be violated.
2. Official non-petitioners have filed written comments, which were treated as written statement on request of Additional Advocate General. It has been contended that the 'petitioners have no locus standi to file the instant writ petition and they are not aggrieved persons to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court.
3. The private non-Petitioners No, 4 and 9 have filed separate written statement, whereas rest of the private non-petitioners have also filed written statement. A cumulative study of the written statements transpires that matter of promotion falls in terms and conditions of civil service, so, the writ petition is not competent in view of prayer clause. It has been explained that through prayer clause it has been requested to direct non-Petitioners No, 1 and 2 to confirm the petitioners against the posts held by them and to restrain the official non-petitioners from taking proceedings for confirmation of the private non-petitioners. It has further been objected that Section Clerks falling at Serial Nos, 1 to 17 have not been impleaded as party, so, the writ petition is not maintainable. It is the claim of non-petitioners that they have been appointed as Assistants B-14 against 33% quota reserved for initial recruitment. It has further been contended that officials in lien of whom, the non- petitioners were appointed have already been promoted, so, the non-petitioners have a right of confirmation of their orders of appointment. It is also the argument of the private non-petitioners that the petitioners have been promoted as Assistant B-14 on officiating basis, whereas there were no posts available for promotion against departmental quota. In their view, the posts occupied by the petitioners fall in quota reserved for initial recruitment. It may be explained here that 33% quota has been reserved for initial recruitment as Assistants B-14 and 67 % has been reserved for departmental promotion from amongst Section Clerks.
4. Point for resolution of controversy in the writ petition is that whether the petitioners have been promoted on officiating basis against the quota reserved for initial recruitment and that whether the private non-petitioners have a right of confirmation of their appointment as Assistants B-14.
5. The official or private non-petitioners have failed to point out total number of posts of Assistants B-14 in the S&GAD and have further failed to point out that how many of the Section Clerks have already been promoted against the quota reserved for departmental promotion and how many of the Assistants B-14 have been appointed against quota reserved for initial recruitment? So, in my view argument advanced on behalf of private non-petitioner is not worth consideration that the petitioners have been appointed in violation of quota reserved for initial recruitment.
6. Orders of appointment of private non-petitioners have been attached with the writ petition as annexure B/1-B/8. It may be clarified here that S&GAD advertised some posts of Assistants B-14, Stenographers and Section Clerks, vide advertisement published in Daily Jinnah dated 21.01.2010. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the posts are required to be filled in on temporary basis which have fallen vacant against lien of some officials. It was further clarified in the condition attached to the advertisement that the posts are temporary in nature. Condition No, 2 at the foot of advertisement clearly mentions that: {{URDU TEXT}}
7. Condition No, 4 further explains that the advertised posts are temporary in nature for which minimum and maximum age limit is 18-35 years. Orders of appointment of private non-petitioners further mention the conditions attached therewith. It has been clarified in the orders of appointments that these appointments are temporary in nature and would create no right for permanent induction. It has also been mentioned in the orders of appointment that the appointees would be considered for confirmation after promotion of the officials against whose lien the orders have been made. The private non-petitioners claim that the officials against whose lien they were appointed have already been promoted to the next higher grade. So, in their view, the non- petitioners have a right to be confirmed as Assistants B-14 and have a right to be considered for further promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that orders of appointment of private non-petitioners are not lawful and do not create a right for their permanent induction. He has relied on 1999 SCR 82, 1993 SCR 208 and 2008 SCR 417. On the other hand learned counsel for private non-petitioners has relied on 1999 SCR 204 by explaining that the posts held by the non- petitioners have become available for permanent induction because the concerned officials have already been promoted to the next higher grade.
8. As mentioned earlier, the private non-petitioners have been appointed as Assistants B-14 on temporary basis. Advertisement inviting applications for recruitment of Assistants B-14 also mentions that temporary posts of Assistants have to be filled in. It is strange to observe that S&GAD has defended the orders of appointment of private non-petitioners by contending that they have been appointed against quota reserved for initial recruitment and have been appointed on recommendations of concerned Selection Committee, so, they are regular employees. It is regretted that Secretariat of S&GAD has treated the orders of appointment of private non- petitioners as on probation. It has not been denied by the department that the posts held by the private non-petitioners were advertised for recruitment on temporary basis because the posts had fallen vacant temporarily because of some officials having been posted ex-cadre. It is, therefore, admitted that at the time of issuance of orders of appointment of private non-petitioners, the advertised posts were available on temporary basis. A temporary appointment, whether in a project or in a regular department, does not create right for permanent induction. Famous case of Waqas Latif reported as PLJ 2013 SC (AJ&K) 140 may be referred in this regard. It has been admitted by the department that the petitioners have been promoted as Assistants B-14 on officiating basis.
Officiating appointment may be ordered under Rule 13 of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. It has been misconceived by the private non- petitioners that an appointment on officiating basis has a life of six months only. Rule 13 referred above does not contain any such limitation. The department has impliedly admitted that the petitioners fall at seniority of Section Clerks for promotion to the posts of Assistants B-14, however, it 'is still for the relevant Selection Committee to examine. that whether the petitioners are entitled to further promotion in accordance with departmental rules?
Nutshell of the above discussion is that orders of appointments of the private non-petitioners are temporary in nature. The private non-petitioners cannot claim confirmation on the basis of their orders of appointment. The petitioners are regular employees of the Services and General Administration Department who have been promoted on officiating basis as Assistants B-14. It is the right of the petitioners that their cases for regular promotion should be presented before the relevant Selection Committee for consideration. Obviously, it is the job of the Selection Committee to examine that whether the petitioners are entitled to confirmation as Assistants B-14 on the basis of their. seniority and fitness in accordance with the departmental rules. The S&GAD is further directed to advertise the posts held by the private non-petitioners against the quota reserved for initial recruitment within a period of sixty days.