1. RAJA SAJJAD AHMED KHAN, J.--- The captioned writ petition has been addressed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, whereby following relief has been implored by the petitioner:-- It is, therefore, humbly prayed: i. That the official respondents may kindly be directed to promote/adjust the petitioner on priority basis against 20% quota which is reserved for the Government servants in B-1 to B-4 vide Notification No. S&GAD/R/A-4(48)/94 Part 11, dated 29.09.1999 from the date of temporary appointment (06.07.2015); ii. That the decision of department selection committee of police department taken in the meeting held on 02.08.2016 that Followers are not covere d in the Government Notification No. S&GAD/R/A-4(48)/94 Part II, dated 29.09.1999 may kindly be declared as without lawful authority , void and of no legal effect. It may further kindly be declared that Followers in the Police Department in B-1 are covered in the said notification of 29.09.1999 covers all employees in B-1 to B-4 including Followers without any discrimination; iii. That the official respondents may kindly be restrained from doing any act which may affect the petitioner's service rights adversely and they may kindly he further restrained from disturbing /transferring the petitioner from the present places; iv. It is further prayed that the non-petitioners may kindly be directed to implement the order of the Hon'ble Prime Minister regarding adjustment/promotion of the petitioner against 20% quota reserved for the Government servants in B-1 to B-4; v. Any other relief with this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be granted to meet the ends of justice."
2. Shortly stated facts of the captioned writ petition are that petitioner's qualification is F.A. alongwith one year computer Diploma and two months depar tmental computer course and also have relevant experience. It is averred that the petitioner also fulfill all requirement for promotion/ adjustment as Junior Clerk. He was appointed as Follower B1 permanently in Police Department on 24.08.2012. After that he was appointed temporarily as Junior Clerk, in the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Traffic/Telecom munications Muzaf farabad on 06.07.2015. It is further averred that Government has allocated 20% quota for Naib Qasids, Qasids, Daftri and others in B-1 to B-4 for promotion to the post of Junior Clerk vide Notification dated 29.09.1999. It is further averred that three posts of Junior Clerk falling to the quota for promotion of employees in B-1 to B-4 are lying vacant in the police department. It is further averred that officials respondents are bound to adjust the petitioner on priority basis against the 20% quota reserved for government servants.
3. This writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 02.11.2017 and respondents were directed to file written statement and comments already filed on behalf of respondents were treated as written statement vide order dated 01.03.2018.
4. Mr. Akhlaq Hussain Mughal, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the facts and grounds narrated in the writ petition and argued that three posts are lying vacant 'and one Jamil Ahmed Qureshi, Follower was promoted/adjusted as Junior Clerk against the aforesaid 20% quota. He further contended that according to tentative seniority list of Junior Clerks in the Police Department, Allah Karim, Follower at S.No. 4 and Muhammad Khalid, Arshad Mahmood, Faisal Bashir , Khaleeq Ahmed, Constables at S. Nos. 10, 12, 24 and 32 respectively were promoted as Junior Clerk. He zealously contended that the petitioner came to know through reliable source that official respondents are going to appoint someone else by ignoring the petitioner against the post of Junior Clerk against 20% quota reserved for Government servants in B-1 to B-4 vide Notification dated 29.09.1999 with mala fide intention just to accommodate their favorite one. Finally , the learned counsel craved for acceptance of the writ petition and respondents may be directed to promote/adjust the petitioner on priority basis against 20% quota reserved for government servant of B-1 to B-4 and further prayed that decision of departmental selection committee of Police Department taken in the meeting held on 02.08.2016 that Followers are not covered in the Government Notification dated 29.09.1999 may kindly be declared as without lawful authority , void and of no legal effect.
5. Mr. Saqib Javed, the learned counsel for respondents while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner could approach to Service Tribunal. lie further argued that the petitioner has not challenged the recommendations of departmental selection committee. He also submitted that in the notification dated 29.09.1999, the Follower has not been mentioned whereas, the Follower is a technical cadre and due to such reason, petitioner cannot be adjusted as Junior Clerk and Departmental Selection Committee has not considered him due to the reasons of his technical trade. Finally , the learned counsel craved for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. A careful consideration of record reveals that admittedly petitioner being eligible was appointed Junior Clerk on temporary basis on 06.07.2015. It-is also admitted fact that he is only qualified among the category IV employees of the department and he was eligible for promotion. It also transpires that DIG Headquarter through letter dated 15.11.2016 guided to DIG Poonch regarding the same matter and stated that Followers are appointed through ministerial Rules and they may be promoted to Junior Clerk but they cannot be promoted as Ardali Constable. The record further shows that previously Maqsood Hussain, and Aftab Karim, Followers have been promoted by the department. The record appended with the files further shows that in P.W.D and service departments Quli, Ferro Printer , Mait, Helper , Cleaner , Dishwasher and Naib Qasids have also been promoted in the light of aforesaid notification. It is important to mention here that the Police Department has 'already promoted the Followers although not mentioned in the notification. In my considered view, the wisdom behind the issuance of notification dated 29.09.1999 is that where the employees of grade 1 to 4 have no line of promotion in the rules or in the departments, they can be promoted in light of such notification. It is useful to reproduce here notification dated 29.09.1999:--- {{URDU TEXT}} The term (URDU TEXT) used in the abov e notification includes all employees of grade 1 to 4. In this notification or Police Rules there is no embargo for promoting the Follower to Junior Clerk. The Hon'ble apex Court in a case titled "Haseeb Ahmed Vs. Superintending Engineer and others" decided on 19.04.2010 clearly . held that "There can be no cavil with the proposition of law that 20% quota is reserved for the post of Junior Clerk for category-IV employees of the department and this quota has to be strictly observed and promotion/appointment against 20% quota shall be made on the basis of seniority of category-IV employees of departm ent. It may be mentioned here that petitioner is only qualified candidate among the Followers or employees of grade 1 to 4. Hence, there appears no reason not to allow this petition and direct that the appointment/promotion of category-IV employees against 20% quota of Junior Clerk shall be strictly adhered, and, the petitioner shall be considered for promotion/appointment against the available post.
8. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that Service Tribunal is the proper forum for redressal of the grievance of petitioner has no substanc e as no final order has been passed against the petitioner rather two members of Selection Committee issued its recommendations which was not signed by the Chairman/DIG Police of the Committee. In fact petitioner seeks implementation of notification dated 29.09.1999 in its true perspective.
9. In light of what has been discussed abov e, the instant writ petition stands accepted and respondents are directed to reconsider the petitioner .