JUDGMENT: GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, J.---The captioned appeal by leave of the Court arises out of the judgment of the High Court dated 28.9.2016 passed in Writ Petition No, 44 of 2013.
2. The precise facts forming the background of the captioned appeal are that respondent No,1 and proforma respondent No,6, herein, challenged the appointments of the appellant and proforma respondents Nos,2 to 5, herein, through a writ petition before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court on 27.11.2013 on the ground that the appointments have been made on political pressure without test and interview. It is claimed that the appellant, herein, could not be legally appointed because he was not in possession of the required qualification and his qualification was got relaxed illegally. The writ petition was contested by the respondent, therein, and it was stated that the appointments have been made after due proclamation in the newspaper by the competent authority and the qualification of the appellant, herein, was rightly relaxed by the competent authority. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court through the impugned judgment accepted the writ petition partly and declared the appointment of the appellant, herein, for having been made without lawful authority. It was observed by the learned High Court that qualification cannot be relaxed by the competent authority and even the order of relaxation has been made on the simple application.
3. Ch. Muhammad Manzoor, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, contended that the appellant, herein, was son of a martyr and the Prime Minister has relaxed his qualification for that reason, hence, he was appointed. The learned Advocate, contended that the writ petition before the High Court was not maintainable because the appointment order of the appellant, herein, was issued on the recommendations of the respective selection committee on 6.7.2012. The respective selection committee was not impleaded as party in the line of respondents. The learned counsel placed reliance on an unreported case titled Saima Fareed and others v. Divisional Director Schools Elementary/ Secondary and others (Civil Appeal No, 220 of 2015 decided on 5.4.2017).
4. Sardar Muhammad Habib Zia, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No,1, contended that no merit list was prepared by the selection committee rather the same was prepared by the District Education Officer (Male), Kotli, hence, the selection committee was not necessary party. The learned Advocate argued that relaxation in the qualification cannot be ordered and if it is assumed that the order can be passed by the competent authority, that too, can be ordered on a duly processed file. The learned Advocate argued that the appointment of the appellant was illegal and without lawful authority, hence, has rightly been declared as such by the learned High Court.
5. We have heard the learned Advocates representing the parties and gone through the record of the case. In view of the proposed conclusion, it is not necessary to go into details the judgment of the High Court. It has been forcefully argued on behalf of the appellant that his appointment was made on the recommendations of respective selection committee vide order dated 6.7.2017. The Committee has not been impleaded in the line of respondents, hence, the writ petition before the High Court was not maintainable in absence of necessary party. In the case titled Saima Fareed and others v. Divisional Director Schools and others (Civil Appeal No,220 of 2015 decided on 5.4.2017), referred to and relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant, similar proposition has been resolved. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "... All the orders annexed with the appeal speak that the same have been issued on the recommendations of Selection Committee, thus, in view of the factual proposition, the validity of the act of the Selection Committee is the basis of main controversy. The Selection Committee as a legal person has not been arrayed in the writ petition as party. Although, the Chairperson, Secretary and one member has been arrayed in their individual capacity but it is the spirit of constitutional provisions of section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 that the necessary party is one whose action has been challenged in the writ petition. In this case, the action of the Chairperson, Secretary or Member of the Selection Committee has not been challenged rather the action of the Selection Committee is challenged. The Selection Committee is a legal person and in view of the peculiar facts of this case unless the same is arrayed as party the writ petition is not maintainable. In this state of affairs, the High Court has rightly applied the principle of law laid down by this Court. On this proposition the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity." The contention of Sardar Muhammad Habib Zia, the learned Advocate for respondent No,1 that the merit list was not prepared by the selection committee, therefore, the selection committee was not necessary party, is devoid of any force. A perusal of the record reveals that, in fact, the appointment of the appellant, herein, was challenged, which was made on the recommendations of the respective selection committee, until and unless the selection committee is not arrayed as party in the line of respondents, the appointment of the appellant, herein, cannot be declared invalid. The result of the above, discussion is that the appeal is accepted. The writ petition filed against the appointment of the appellant, herein, before the learned High Court, is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.