GHULAM MUST AFA MUGHAL, J. The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment dated 03.02.2018, passed by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunal in Service Appeals No. 24 and 43 of 2015.
2. The facts forming the background of the captioned appeal are that vide Government notification dated 16.04.2014, on the recommendations of selection board No. 2. respondents No. 12 and herein, were promoted as Deputy Director Information B-18 in Directorate General of Public Relations (DGPR) on regular basis. The appellant, herein, challenged the legality and correctness of the notification dated 16.04.2014 through appeal No. 24 before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunal on 06.01.2015. It was alleg ed that he is senior most Deputy Director information B-18 and is at serial No. 1 of the seniority list. It was further alleged that his promotion has been kept in abeyance for more than 4 years with mala fide intention. It was stated that meanwhile 3 appeals were filed by him before the Service Tribunal. The first was decided on 21.12.2010, whereby , a direction was given by the learned Service Tribunal for promotion of the appellant, herein, in B-18 within 3 months but the judgment was not implemented. It was further stated that thereafter the appellant herein, again invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Service Tribunal and vide judgment dated 28.11.2013, the learned Service Tribunal again directed the respondents, therein, to promote the appellant, herein, in B-18. It was claimed that during pendency of the proceedings, the respondents secretly promoted the private respondents, herein, vide notification dated 16.04.2014. It was further claimed that the promotions of the private-respondents, herein, is illegal, violative of law and seniority . Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The respondents, herein, contested the appeal by filing written statement/objections and stated the reasons for non-consideration of the appellant, herein, for promotion. It was also stated that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. On 12.01.2015, the appellant, herein, filed appeal No. 43 against the notification dated 06.01.2015, whereby , respondent No 12, herein, has further been promoted as Director Information B-19. It was stated that this notification is also violative of law, seniority and judgments of the Courts because the appellant, herein, has not been considered as yet for promotion as was directed by the learned Service Tribunal. This appeal was also contested by the respondents by filing written statement/objections. After neces sary proceedings and hearing the parties, the learned Service Tribunal through the impugned consolidated judgment dated 03.02.2018, dismissed the appeals on the ground that the appellant, herein, was considered for promotion but has not been found fit as such by the respective selection board and the wisdom of the selection board cannot be substituted. It was also held that the appeal No. 24/2015 is hopelessly time-barred for having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation despite knowledge of the notification dated 16.04.2014.
3. The stand of the appellant, herein, before the Service Tribunal in appeal No. 24/2015 was that he got knowledge of the notification dated 16.04.2015 through indulgence of the High Court as the same was kept secret hence, could not be challenged in time. It was stated by him in the appeal that he received the said notification on 05.07.2015 and after obtaining its certified copy, filed appeal on 06.01.2015 which was within limitation. This fact has been considered by the learned Service Tribunal in-depth. During the course of arguments before this Court, the appellant, herein, was directed to produce a copy of the writ petition filed before the High Court which has been produced by him. The prayer clause of the writ petition reveals that it was in the knowledge of the appellant that the promotion case of the private-respondents, herein, was approved on 28.11.201 3, the learned High Court after production of the promotion notification, dismissed the writ petition on 13.02.2014, therefore, it was enjoined upon the appellant, herein, to file appeal within limitation. The learned Service Tribunal has given sound reasoning for dismissing the appeal No. 24, hence, we are not inclined to disturb the findings recorded by it which are supported by law and facts.
4. So far as, appeal No. 43 is concerned, it was filed against the notification dated 06.01.2015, the learned Service Tribunal has considered the relevant rules which provide that for promotion as Director Press Information/Publicity/Protocol 13-19, the Deputy Director B-18 in the concerned unit having at least 12 years service in B-17 and above; or 7 years service in case of initial recruitment in B-18, is eligible. The appellant, herein, was not admittedly a confirmed Deputy Director Information B-18 , therefore, could not be considered for promotion in B-19. He cannot be said to be an aggri eved person against the notification dated 06.01.2015. In this regard, the learned Service Tribunal has rightly relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases titled Tariq Zia Abbasi v. Speaker AJK Legislative Asse mbly and others (Civil PLA No. 109/2015, decided on 10.02.2016) and Syed Shoukat Hussain Ganai v. Abdul Rehman Abbasi and others [1993 SCR 70]. We endorse the view taken by the learned Service Tribunal and does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 03.02.2018.
The upshot of the above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal, the same is hereby , dismissed with costs.