Raja Saeed Akram Khan, CJ.--Both the titled appeals have arisen out of the common judgment of the Service Tribunal, hence, the same are being disposed of through this consolidated judgment.
2. The short facts of the case are that vide notification dated 22.04.2021, the promotion of Syed Bilal Haider Gillani made against the post of Deputy Directora Laboratory/Investigation vide notification dated 27.01.2021 was changed to the post of Deputy Director Civil while deleting the words "availability of post", whereas, through the same notification the period of adlioc appointment of Hina Maqsood, Respondent No. 9. from 25.02.2015 to 12.06.2018 was ordered to be considered for the purpose of calculating the required length of service for promotion. It is worth mentioning that the aforesaid notification was passed on the appeal/review filed by Hina Maqsood. Against the notification dated 22.04.2021 two appeals were filed before the Service Tribunal; one by Bilal Qureshi on the ground that his way of promotion has been blocked and the other by Syed Bilal Haider Gillani. The learned Service Tribunal, after necessary proceedings, dismissed both the appeals through' the impugned judgment.
3. Mr. Abdul Rasheed Abbasi, Advocate, who is representing Syed Bilal Haider Gillani, submitted that the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is against the law. The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1976 as well as the judgments of this Court have been misinterpreted by the Service Tribunal. He submitted that in the case relied upon by the Service Tribunal, the appeal was dismissed for the reason of not impleading the necessary party whereas, in the instant case all the necessary parties have been arrived. Therefore, dismissal of the appeal by the Service Tribunal on hyper technical ground that the appellant entered the name of Prime Minister at serial No. 2 instead of serial No. 1 is not warranted under law.
4. Conversely, Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate, submitted that the learned Service Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal while relying on the case reported as Inspector General of Police vs. Muhammad Fareed & others [2019 SCR 351].
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Without touching the merits of the case, it appears that the learned Service Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by Syed Bilal Haider Gillani on the sole ground that in the title of appeal he has entered the name of Prime Minister at Serial No. 2 instead of serial No. 1 which is violation of principle of law laid down by this Court in the case reported as Inspector General of Police vs. Muhammad Fareed and others [2019 SCR 351]. The principle of law laid down in the referred judgment is that under Rule 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1976 in every memo. of appeal the competent authority shall be shown as the first respondent and thereafter all other parties to the dispute shall be shown as the respondents. It may be stated here that in the referred judgment the competent authority was Government and while filing the appeal, the appellant, therein, totally failed to array the government as party in the line of the respondents. The case in hand is quite different as there is no dispute that the competent authority has not been arrayed at all rather the controversy is that the competent authority has been arrayed at Serial No. 2 and not at Serial No. 1. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in saying that dismissal of the appeal on this hyper technical ground by the Service Tribunal is not warranted. According to the principle of law laid down by this Court the parties should not be knocked out on technical grounds rather the cases should be decided on merits. Therefore, in our opinion the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is based upon misinterpretation of the relevant rule as well as judgment of this Court which is not applicable to the case in hand.
6. Resultantly, While accepting Appeal No. 180 of 2022, the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is set aside to the extent of Syed Bilal Haider Gillani and the case is remanded with the direction Service Tribunal to expeditiously decide the case on merits, after providing fair opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the parties.
7. So far as the case of Bilal Qureshi, is concerned, his appeal was dismissed by the Service Tribunal on the ground of failure to array Hina Maqsood as party in the line of the respondents. We have directed the learned counsel for both the parties to file the written arguments which have been filed. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Hina Maqsood was already arrayed in a connected appeal titled Syed Bilal Haider Gillani vs, Azad Govt. and others, and both the appeals were heard and disposed of together, hence, the appeal could not be dismissed in such eventuality. Furthermore, Hina Maqsood had no nexus with the post of Deputy Director Civil, B- 18, hence, she was not required to be impleaded as party. In our considered opinion, the learned Service Tribunal has rightly opined that the impugned notification dated 22.04.2021 was passed on the appeal/review filed by Hina Maqsood, hence, in her absence no effective relief can be given to the appellant. The stance of the appellant that Hina Maqsood was arrayed in a connected case, hence, she was not required to be arrayed in the appeal cannot be accepted and it appears to be mere a lame excuse. It has been laid down by this Court in a number of cases that in absence of a necessary party no effective relief can be provided. In case reported as Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kiani vs. Azad Govt. and others [1997 SCR 389] it was held that: "13. The Requirement that the competent authority be impleaded as a party is analogous to a similar requirement in writ petition. The basic requirement of law in exercise of writ jurisdiction of High Court is that if an order of a public functionary has to be challenged in the High Court through a writ petition that functionary must be impleaded as a party. Similarly if a direction or prohibition is sought against a public functionary that functionary is a necessary party without which neither a writ petition is maintainable nor an effective order can be passed. Requirement of law in dealing with service matter is that if an order adversely effecting the interest of authority that authority must be impleaded as real respondent in an appeal before the Service Tribunal.
Service to Act and the rules framed thereunder are special statutes and a specific provision being provided in the rules i.e. Rule 8, any party being found guilty of violation of the rules is not entitled to any relief and the appeal filed by that party without impleading the competent authority as respondent, the same becomes incompetent."
Likewise, in the case reported Inspector General of Police vs. Muhammad Fareed & others [2019 SCR 351], this Court held that: "The procedure of the learned Service Tribunal for disposal of appeals and other ancillary matters has been regulated by the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1976.
Rule 7 provides the mode of filing appeals. Under Rule 8 it is postulated that in every memorandum of appeal the competent authority shall be shown as the first respondent and thereafter all other parties to the dispute shall be shown as respondents. As the Government was authority, who has issued the notification dated 11.1.2017, therefore, it was enjoined upon the appellants before the Service Tribunal to implead the Government as such and thereafter arrayed the other respondents, who have issued the other orders for deputing the respondents on the course on the basis of this notification. As in the appeal before the Service Tribunal, Government who was a necessary party, was not impleaded as such, therefore, we are of the considered view that the appeal was not competent and the Service Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and has issued the direction on an incompetent appeal. The application for impleading the Government as party and producing the other orders at this stage cannot be allowed. The observation on other arguments would be academic as the captioned appeal can be disposed of on the above legal ground."
In our opinion, Hina Maqsood, was one of the necessary parties on whose appeal/review the notification impugned before the Service Tribunal was passed. hence, in her absence no effective relief can be provided and the learned Service Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal on this ground. Resultantly, the appeal filed by Bilal Qureshi (C.A. No. 181/2022) is dismissed.