1. The titled writ petition has been addressed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, seeking aid of this Court by making a specific relief in the following manner: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed On behalf of the petitioner that by accepting the instant writ petition, an appropriate writ in favour of the petitioner against the respondents may kindly be issued, whereby the official respondents may kindly be directed to appoint/adjust the petitioner against the post of Junior Clerk in accordance with merit list on permanent basis against the post which is already occupied by the petitioner i.e. Govt. Boys High. School Qilan, Tehsil Tararkhal, District Sudhnoti, Azad Jammu & Kashmir."
2. The petitioner is 1st class State Subject who is residing at District Sudhnoti, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The Respondent No. 1, advertised certain posts of Junior Clerks including the said 06 posts against the quota of District Sudhnoti, by inviting applications from the desirous candidates.
3. Among other candidates the petitioner applied for the same and competed as such who was placed at Serial of the merit list dated 31.10.2018, wherein it was also mentioned that the said list shall be effective for six months. It is averred that candidates falling at Serial No. 1 to 10, were appointed as Teachers and candidates falling from Serial No. 6 and 08, were earlier appointed as Junior Clerks, who during service due to fake educational degrees were resigned from their service and the aforesaid posts were vacant from December 2018 to March 2019, upon which appointment of petitioner could be made on permanent basis, however, the petitioner was appointed on temporary/contract basis vide order dated 04.04.2019. The petitioner moved an application to Respondent No. 1, on 18.02.2021, for his adjustment on regular basis who by admitting the claim of the petitioner recommended him for permanent appointment, however, due to mala-fide reasons the petitioner could not be appointed up till now, hence, the captioned writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the parties argued the cases per their respective pleadings.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone, through the contents of writ petition as well as appended record thereto with utmost care.
6. Main plank of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner Raja Muhammad Arif Rathore, Advocate, is that the petitioner having requisite qualification for the post of Junior Clerk B-11, participated in the selection process and resultantly succeeded in getting meritorious position but despite availability of the posts of Junior Clerks the respondents with mala-fide intention are not redressing the grievance of the petitioner. He further added that the respondents have adopted arbitrary modus operandi quo appointments as they are opting to pick and choose from the merit list already prepared which is reflecting from the record, that too, the candidates whose names appeared at Serial Nos. 1 and 10 were appointed as teachers and the candidates at Serial Nos. 6 and 8, were initially appointed as Junior Clerk B-11 and later on during existence of merit, list they resigned from the job on account of indication of fake degrees whereas candidates falling at the Serial Nos. 2, 5, 7 and 9, of the merit list were appointed as junior Clerks B-11. The official respondents astonishingly instead appoint the petitioner on permanent basis as Junior Clerk B-11, for the time being adjusted him on temporary basis as Junior Clerk B-11, which act on their part is discriminatory and mala-fide.
7. While in juxta position Abdul Basit Khan, Legal Advisor for official respondents repeated the contents of written statement already offered by them. As per pleaded stance he argued that as the petitioner has failed to bring his grievance before the competent authority i.e. DPI (M) within prescribed period for his permanent appointment in light of merit, therefore, his claim at belated stage could not be entertained that is why his case for permanent appointment has been received against the post of Junior Clerk B-11, in the Directorate of Education on 18.02.2021 and 24.03.2021, was not considered accordingly.
8. After taking into consideration the argumentation pro and contra and perusal of the record with utmost care and caution particularly juxta pose analysis of the pleadings, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is made out a case for this Court in its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction.
9. Written statement offered by the official respondents is tantamount to evasive denial which in the eye of law is considered as admission of the stance of the petitioner particularly the grounds E, F, G, have simply been denied in the manner. While in reply of Para No. 4 the official respondents have admitted the stance of the petitioner quo availability of the posts of Junior Clerks and meritorious position of the petitioner, which is useful to reproduce B the Para No, 4, grounds E, F, G & H, of the written statement, as under: Majesty of law demands that when a person applied for open competition against a vacant post and thereafter come up to mark thus a valuable legal right already stood created in his favour could not be snatched by way of procrastinating/delay by one pretext or the other as guaranteed by the Constitution particularly fundamental Right No. 1 and 15. It is an astonishing state of affairs and hypothesis on the part of official respondents that as the petitioner himself failed to bring his claim before the authority within time, hence, he could not be appointed against the post of Junior Clerk B-11, Be that as it may the petitioner could not be blamed for any loop hole in this connection for procrastination on the part of official respondents. As it was burdened duty of the official respondents to do needful in this regard when the posts fell vacant on account of relinquishing the right of appointment by the some candidates due to indication of fake degrees and redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. The official respondents could not get advantage of their own loop hole. No rigmarole or "U" turn on the part of official respondents is recognized by law.
10. It is celebrated principle of law that a thing which is required to be done in a particular manner can only be performed accordingly as indicated by law otherwise performance of the same is nullity in the eye of law.
11. Negation of the established right of the petitioner is discriminatory besides violation of the Constitution and obvious threats of the Constitutionally fundamental guaranteed rights enshrined in Interim Constitution, 1974.
12. Authority concerned slept over the matter without any justification instead of redressing the genuine grievance of the petitioner which is violation of the doctrine of administration Justice and doctrine of reasonable expectations, thus facts above are calling for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction bestowed under Article 44 of the Interim Constitution, 1974.
13. The nub of above discussion is that the instant writ petition is accepted and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner against the post of Junior Clerk B-11, in light of his meritorious (admitted position) against the post held by him or any other, post within two months period.