GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, J.----The captioned appeal by leave of the court arise out of the judgment dated 8-7-2017 passed by the learned High Court in Writ Petition No.431 of 2014.
2. The facts of the case shortly stated are that the appellants are residents of Union Council Maloot, Tehsil Dhirkot, District Bagh. It is stated that the Government vide notification dated 13.10.2009, besides others, upgraded Boys Middle School Beesbagla as High School. Subsequently, the Government vide notification dated 15.11.2011 issued a corrigendum through which the said school was renamed as Boys High School Pesjhola. The appellants, herein, feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid notification challenged the legality and correctness of the same through a writ petition before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court on 1.3.2014 on different grounds. It was claimed that the building of Government High School Pasjohala is situated in village Chanat, Union. Council Maloot, Tehsil Dhirkot Constituency No. 1 Gharbi Bagh, whereas, the village Pasjohala falls in the Union Council Thub, Tehsil Bagh Constituency No. 2 Wasti Bagh. It was further claimed that as the school is situated in the limits of Union Council Maloot, Tehsil Dhirkot and the majority of students are residents of village Channat Union Council Maloot, therefore, the people of the same Union Council have a legal right to be appointed against newly created posts which are to be filled from the concerned Union Council and Constituency level, but the respondents have deprived the peoples of Constituency No.1 of their basic right i.e. the right of appointment on the basis of constituency level by changing the name of the Schools on political intervention. Therefore, the notification dated 15.11.2011 is illegal, arbitrary and without lawful authority, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. It was prayed that Notification dated 15.11.2011 may kindly be set aside and respondents may kindly be directed to change the name of Govt. Boys High School Chanat instead of Govt. Boys High School Beesbagla/Pasjohla. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing written statement. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court through the impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petition.
3. Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, vehemently argued that the impugned judgment of the learned High Court is perverse, erroneous and is against the pleaded facts. The learned Advocate argued that in paragraph No. 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned High Court has dismissed the writ petition while observing that the appellants, herein, have not challenged the notification dated 20.6.2014, whereby the school in question was notified in the name of Captain Waqas Zameer Shaheed (Sitara-e-Basalat) Govt.
Boys High School. The learned Advocate argued that it escaped the notice of the learned Judge in the High Court that notification dated 20.6.2014 was challenged separately through another writ petition, which is still awaiting adjudication. He argued that the matter was brought into the notice of the learned Judge in the High Court, who has not mentioned the same in the impugned judgment. The learned Advocate argued that the controversy was with regard to the name of the school in question in relation to village Beesbagla and Pasjhola, hence, the learned High Court has not properly attended the controversy and came to an erroneous conclusion. The learned Advocate argued that notification dated 26.9.2011 was not published in the official gazette, therefore, the same has no sanctity in the eye of law and the question of laches was not attracted at all. The learned Advocate argued that change of the name of the school in question was made on political initiative and the inhabitants of village Beesbagla were not provided the right of hearing. The learned Advocate argued that it was enjoined upon the learned High Court to consolidate both the writ petitions and thereafter decided the same.
4. Raja Ibrar Hussain Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for the private respondents, vehemently argued that the writ petition was filed in representative capacity without obtaining the written consent of the Advocate General or permission of the Court as visualized by Order I Rule 8, C.P.C., hence, the same was liable to be dismissed without attending its merits. The learned Advocate argued that the writ petition badly suffered from laches because notification dated 25th November, 2011 was challenged after a period of four years, without any plausible explanation, therefore, the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition on this ground. The learned Advocate argued that the petitioners appellants, herein, were not at all aggrieved because they are residents of village Chanat, where the disputed school has been constructed.
5. Sardar Abdul Sammie Khan, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, submitted that the schools in question was established in the name of village Beesbagla but has been constructed in village Chanat after the Earthquake in light of the decision of the respectables of the locality as well as on the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Government.
6. Mr. Muhammad Zubair Raja, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents Nos. 2 and 3, contended that no violation of any law or rules has been committed by the Government while issuing notification dated 25th November, 2011, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable. He further argued that policy decision cannot be changed while deciding the writ petition, hence, the writ petition was also not maintainable on this ground.
7. We have heard the learned Advocates representing the parties and have gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the record reveals that the Government of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir vide notification dated 13.10.2009 upgraded Middle School Beesbagla.as High School along with creation of some posts. On 26th September, 2011, another notification was issued by the Government whereby the name of the school in dispute was entered as Boys High School Pesjehola instead of Beesbagla. Subsequently, vide notification dated 15th November, 2011 while cancelling the notification dated 26.9.2011 from the date of issuance, has made the same correction as has been made in notification dated 26th September, 2011. The appellants, herein, admittedly, are the residents of village Chanat, Union Council Maloot except appellant No.4, who is resident of village Chalandrat, wherein the disputed school has been constructed. As they are residents of village Chanat, therefore, in our considered view, they are not aggrieved from the impugned notification and have no locus-standi to challenge the same.
8. The contention of Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, the learned Advocate for the appellants that the learned High Court has wrongly stated that notification issued by the Services and General Administration Department on 20.6 2014, the school in question was notified in the name of Caption Waqas Zameer Shaheed Government Boys High Schools (Sitara-e-Basalat) Pes Johla is not challenged. It is correct that notification dated 20.6.2014 is the subject matter of another writ petition before the High Court, which is yet to be decided by the learned High Court, therefore, we will not embark upon the legality and correctness of notification dated 20.6,2014 as the same was not challenged in this case. The learned High Court has dismissed the writ petition while giving reasons in para No. 14 of the impugned judgment. Our perusal of the record also leads us to the same conclusion. Moreover, the appellants; herein, have filed the writ petition in the representative capacity but before filing the same, they have not obtained written consent of the Advocate General in the manner prescribed by section 92, C.P.C. They have also not sought permission of the Court under Orders I to VIII, C.P.C. As the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable to the writ proceedings, therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this score. We may refer to the case reported as Fakir Shah and others v. Mehtab Shah Pir Bukhari Masjid Committee and others (PLD 1989 SC 283).
9. It has also rightly been contended that a writ is competent only where violation of rules or law is pointed out and where no such violation is pointed out, a writ cannot be entertained to resolve the question of academic interest.
The upshot of the above discussion is that finding no force in ID this appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.