Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J. The captioned appeal, by have of the Court, has been filed against then judgment of the High Court dated 28.03.2022, whereby, the writ petition filed by the respondent, herein, has been disposed of.
2. The facts forming the background of the captioned appeal are that the respondent, herein, filed a writ petition in the High Court, alleging, therein, that she is M.A. M.Ed. qualified and is performing her duties as In-charge Headmistress in Govt. Girls High School Chowki Mong, District Kotli. It was averred that her substantive scale is B-16. She was granted time scale B-18, vide notification dated 17.12.2008, with effect from 20.06.2008. She was promoted as Senior Teacheress, vide order dated 03.03.1988, but inadvertently her name could not be entered in the final seniority list, as such, she could not be promoted and a most junior incumbent serving in B-16 has been promoted in B-17. It was alleged that she filed an application before the concerned authority for redressal of her grievance regarding seniority and substantive promotion in B-17, which was partially accepted to the extent of seniority and the department issued corrigendum on 09.07.2019, whereby, the name of the petitioner/respondent, herein, has been inserted at Serial No. 41-A of final seniority list of Senior Teachers with effect from 30.11.1988, however, the matter of retrospective promotion has not been considered. It was prayed that the petitioner/respondent. herein, is serving in substantive grade B-16 since last 30 years, hence, a direction may be issued to the respondents for her retrospective promotion in substantive grade B-17, as per her seniority position. The writ petition was contested by the other side by filing written statement, whereby, the claim of the petitioner/respondent, herein, was refuted. It was stated that the qualification required for promotion in substantive grade B-17 as Headmistress is M.A. M.Ed. 2nd Division, whereas, the petitioner/respondent, herein, has passed the said degrees in 3rd Division, hence, she is not entitled to be promoted as such. The learned High Court after hearing the parties disposed of the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 28.03.2022, in the following manner: "Therefore, the respondents are directed to mull over the matter in judicious manner and if the case of the petitioner is found fit for grant of proforma promotion in view of Rule 2(2)(1) of the AJ&K Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, and she fulfils all pre-requisites in this regard then send her name for consideration to Committee constituted for this purpose."
This judgment of the High Court is the subject-matter of the captioned appeal by leave of the Court.
3. At the very outset, Ch. Amjid Ali, Advocate, the learned counsel representing Respondent No. 1 raised a preliminary objection that the appellants have not appended certified copy of the grounds of amended writ petition filed before the High Court, with the memo. of PLA/appeal before this Court, hence, this appeal is not maintainable due to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to and relied upon the cases reported as Syed Abid Hussain Shah and others vs. Administrator Auqaf & others [2015 SCR 1220] and Azad Govt. and others vs. Muhammad Ishaque Khan and 3 others [2019 SCR 383] and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
4. When the learned Advocate representing the appellants was confronted with the position, he frankly conceded that inadvertently copy of grounds of the amended writ petition filed before the High Court could not be appended with the memo. of PLA/appeal.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Advocates representing the parties and have perused the record made available along with the impugned judgment. A perusal of the record reveals that the respondent, herein, filed an application for amendment in the writ petition on 04.02.2022, which was allowed. Consequently, the respondent, herein, filed amended writ petition on 16.02.2022, but the certified copy of the grounds of amended writ petition has not been annexed by the appellants, herein, with the memo. of PLA/appeal which is a mandatory requirement of statutory law. This Court in a number of cases has held that the PLA/appeal is liable to be dismissed due to non-compliance of the statutory provision of law i.e. non-furnishing of the certified copy of grounds of appeal/writ petition/application filed before the Court below.
Reference may be made to the case reported as Azad Govt. and others vs. Muhammad Ishaque Khan and 3 others [2019 SCR 383], wherein, this Court has observed as Under: "5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and examined the record made available. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has substance.
This Court in a number of cases has held that the petition for leave to appeal is liable to be dismissed due to noncompliance of statutory provision of law i.e. not furnishing the certified copies.
The reference can be made to the case titled Syed Abid Hussain Shah and others vs. Administrator Auqaf and another [2015 SCR 1220] wherein, it has been held that: `7. The provisions of Order XIII, Rule 3 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of the same merits dismissal of petition for leave to appeal/appeal. For proper appreciation Rule 3 of Order XIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1978 is reproduced as under: `Rule 3 of Order XIII
3. (1) The petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of:-
(i) his petition for special leave to appeal;
(ii) the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court and the order of the High Court refusing grant of certificate under Section 42(11) of the Constitution, if any, one copy each of which shall be certified to be correct;
(iii) .......................
(iv) ......................
The same proposition as is involved in the instant case came under consideration of this Court in the case reported as Ch. Ajaib Hussain and another vs. Mst. Zareen Akhtar and 11 others (2000 SCR 70) in the circumstances that two writ petitions in the High Court were heard and disposed of together. The writ petition filed by Ch. Ajaib Hussain and others was dismissed while the other filed by Zareen Akhtar and others was accepted. Ch. Ajaib Hussain and others filed petition for leave to appeal and filed a copy of the memo. of writ petition with the petition for leave to appeal. An objection was raised that the writ petition in the High Court was amended and instead of filing the copy of amended writ petition, the appellants-petitioners have filed the copy of the original writ petition, which is not in existence after filing of the amended writ petition, therefore, petition for leave to appeal/appeal is not maintainable. The counsel for the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay and filing of copy of memo. of amended writ petition. This Court observed that the provisions of Order XIII, Rule 3 are mandatory in nature and non-compliance of these provisions of Rules merits dismissal of petition for leave to appeal/appeal. It was also observed that the appellants were not vigilant in filing the petition for leave to appeal/appeal. The application for condonation of delay and permission for filing the copy of the amended writ petition was also dismissed. It was observed at page 73 of the report as under:- `Clause (ii) reproduced above lays down clearly that certified copies of three documents have to be attached with the petition for leave to appeal which are;
(i) judgment and order sought to be appealed from;
(ii) grounds of 'appeal' or 'application' before the High Court and;
(ii) order of the High Court refusing grant of certificate, if any.
As is clear, grounds of appeal or application are required to be filed with the petition for leave to appeal. The word "application" without any doubt covers all sorts of applications which can be moved before the High Court resulting in the judgment against which petition for leave to appeal is filed in this Court, be it a bail application or an application for revision, for grant or vacation of a stay order, or transfer application.'
At page 77, it was further held as under: 'The fact that copies were obtained and were misplaced does not make, out a case of condonation which can only be granted if sufficient cause is shown. We have gone through all the previous judgment in which appeals were dismissed for the fatal defect under discussion and find that the condonation was not granted to any appellant.'
Again, the matter recently came under the consideration of this Court in the case titled Muhammad Azam and others vs. Khadim Hussain and others (Civil Appeal No. 68/2013, decided on 14th February, 2015). In the said case, two appeals were decided through a consolidated judgment. Along with the petition for leave to appeal/appeal the copy of memorandum of only one appeal was filed. This Court dismissed the appeal. It was observed as under: `We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, From the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Sudhnoti dated 16th August, 2006, two appeals; one titled Muhammad Azam and others vs. Khadim Hussain and others. Bearing No. 34/2005 and second; Nazar Muhammad and others vs. Khadim Hussain and others, bearing No. 55/2006 were filed by the appellants in the High Court. Both the appeals were dismissed by the High Court through a consolidated judgment on 30th October, 2012. Rule 3 of Order XIII of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, provides the documents which shall be filed along with the petition for leave to appeal. The same is reproduced as under: `Rule 3 of Order XIII
3. (1) The petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of:
(i) his petition for special leave to appeal;
(ii) the judgment and order sought to be appealed from together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court and the order of the High Court refusing grant of certificate under Section 42(11) of the Constitution, if any, one copy each of which shall be certified to be correct;
(iii) ...................
(iv) ...................
A perusal of rule makes it mandatory that petitioner shall lodge at least four copies of the petition for leave to appeal from the judgment and order sought to be appealed together with grounds of appeal or application before the High Court. The provisions of above-mentioned Rule are mandatory and non-compliance results into dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal. This Court in a number of cases has observed a that provisions of Rule are mandatory and non- compliance of Rule 3 of Order XIII results into dismissal of the petition for leave to appeal. It was observed in case titled Ch. Ajaib Hussain and another vs. Mst. Zareen Akhtar and 11 others [2000 SCR 70], which is as under: `From these provisions it is clear that grounds of the application filed before the petition for leave to appeal and that an application includes one under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act. As held in a number of cases mentioned above, omission to file copy of the application is a fatal defect for which the appeal has to be dismissed.'
In this regard, the reliance can also be made to the case titled Muhammad Azad and others vs. Khadim Hussain and others [2015 SCR 126].
6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they applied for amended writ petition, has no substance as no such ground is taken in the memo. of petition for leave to appeal.
The Advocates of the Supreme Court should be careful while drafting the petitions and should apply their mind in scrutinizing the record, specially, the mandatory requirement of the rules should be fulfilled. The objection prevails. This petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of law and non-furnishing of certified copy of amended writ petition."
6. As we have reached at the conclusion that the PLA/appeal has not been competently filed, therefore, there is no need to dilate upon the merits and demerits of the case.
Resultantly, this appeal being incompetently filed stands dismissed.