Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J.--The appeal (supra) by leave of the Court has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court, dated 05.12.2019, passed in Writ Petition No. 1782/2015.
2. The brief facts culminating into filing of the instant appeal are that Respondent No. 1, herein, filed a writ petition in the High Court, alleging therein that he is 1st Class State Subject, who being a political and social worker has firm belief in the supremacy of law in the State. He alleged that the Controller General of Accounts Islamabad, issued a notification on 03.04.2010, through which among others, the post of District Accounts Officer/Accounts Officer, was upgraded from (BPS-17) to (BPS-18). It was further alleged that in the light of the notification dated 03.04.2010, the Chairman Azad Kashmir Mineral & Industrial Development Corporation (AKMIDC), sent a proposal for up- gradation of the post of Accounts Officer from (BPS-17) to (BPS-18), vide letter dated 09.04.2014, addressed to the Secretary AKMIDC, for approval of Finance Department for adapting the notification of Controller General of Accounts Islamabad, dated 03.04.2010. It was contended that the Government, disagreed with the proposal vide letter dated 29.04.2014, on the ground that if the aforesaid notification of the Controller General of Accounts Islamabad, dated 03.04.2010 is adapted in AKMIDC then other corporations shall also make the identical demand which shall create problems. It was averred that the Chairman AKMIDC, while ignoring the written refusal of the Government dated 29.04.2014, adapted the notification dated 03.04.2010 in the AKMIDC vide order dated 25.06.2014 by giving pack date effect i.e. from October, 2010. Thereafter, the post of Accounts Officer, held by Respondent No. 7, appellant, herein, was upgraded to (BPS-18) vide order dated 27.06.2014 with retrospective effect from 01.10.2010. Later on, Respondent No. 7, appellant, herein, was deputed by transfer to the Women University Bagh vide notification dated 09.07.2015. It was pleaded in the writ petition that the act of the respondents, therein was illegal, arbitrary and without lawful authority, hence he was constrained to file the writ petition. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court through the impugned judgment has accepted the writ petition in the following terms; "10. The upshot of the above discussions is that the writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders dated 25.06.2014, 27.06.2014 and 09.04.2015 are hereby set aside, hence, it is hereby declared that the relevant procedure has not been followed by the respondents in issuing the aforesaid orders according to law."
This judgment of the learned High Court is subject matter of instant appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Amjad Hameed Siddiqui, the learned Advocate representing the appellant argued that the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court is against law and the record of the case, hence, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further argued that the AKMIDC is basically a corporation (Semi-Autonomous Body) and entire fiscal and administrative affairs of the corporation vests in the Board of Directors. He added that the Controller General of Accounts Islamabad, issued the notification on 03.04.2010, for upgradation of the post of District Accounts Officer from (BPS-17) to (BPS-18). The said notification was adapted by the AKMIDC on the recommendations of the Board of Directors in the larger interest of the Corporation. In the light of the said notification the post of Accounts Officer held by the appellant was up-graded after fulfilling all the legal formalities. He further added that Respondents No. 1, herein, challenged the notifications regarding adaptation and upgradation of the post of Accounts Officer, i.e. dated 25.06.2014, 27.06.2014 and 30.06.2014, by filing the writ petition in the High Court on the ground that the same have been issued without obtaining the concurrence of the Finance Department. The learned High Court while handing down the impugned judgment observed that the concurrence of the Finance Department was not necessary, however, accepted the writ petition on such ground which was neither raised in the writ petition nor argued at the time of arguments. The learned Advocate, further alleged that the writ petition was filed with mala fide intention only to the extent of the appellant, herein, without touching upon the other beneficiaries of the notification. The learned High Court failed to consider all these important aspects of the matter and illegally accepted the writ petition. He prayed for acceptance of appeal.
4. Conversely, Kh. Attaullah Chak, the learned Advocate, representing Respondent No. 1, forcefully.
Opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court is legal and perfect in all aspects, calling for no interference by this Court. He further submitted that the notification issued by the Controller General of Accounts Government of Pakistan dated 03.04.2010 was adapted by the AKMIDC without any lawful authority and following the proper procedure. He added that initially the Chairman AKMIDC sent a proposal to the Government for upgradation of the post in question and concurrence of the Finance Department, however the said proposal was refused. Thereafter, the Chairman AKMIDC, itself upgraded the post in question without any lawful authority, hence, the learned High Court has rightly accepted the writ petition. The appellant has failed to point out any illegality committed by the learned High Court, hence, this appeal merits dismissal.
5. We have considered the arguments of the learned Advocates, representing the parties and gone through the record made available along with the impugned judgment. The matter in hand relates to the upgradation of the post of Accounts Officer, in the AKMIDC. The record reveals that the Controller General of Accounts Islamabad, issued a notification on 03.04.2010, through which among others, the post of District Accounts Officer/Accounts Officer, was upgraded from (BPS-17) to (BPS-18). In the light of the aforesaid notification, the Chairman AKMIDC, adapted the notification dated 03.04.2010 in the AKMIDC vide order dated 25.06.2014. Thereafter, vide order dated 27.06.2014, the post of Accounts Officer, held by Respondent No. 7, appellant, herein, was upgraded from (BPS- 17) to (BPS-18), with retrospective effect from 01.10.2010.
6. It transpired from the record that Respondent No. 1, herein, being a political and social worker, 'having belief in the supremacy of law, challenged the notifications dated 25.06.2014. 27.06.2014 and 30.06.2014, by filing a writ petition before the High Court on the sole ground that the concurrence of the Finance Department has not been obtained for adaptation and upgradation of the post in question. The learned High Court while handing down the impugned judgment has not accepted the stance of the petitioner/Respondent No. 1, herein, and held that under Rule 15 of the Rules of Business 1985, the concurrence of the Finance Department was not necessary, as the AKMIDC does not fall within the purview of the Department rather it is a Corporation. The learned High Court accepted the writ petition on the ground that after the amendment in Section 5 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Mineral and Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1971, dated 20.06.2014, the Government should have constituted the Board of Directors of AKMIDC, which is lacking in the case in hand. Furthermore, the order dated 25.06.2014, regarding adaptation of the notification dated 03.04.2010, has been issued by the Chairman Board of Directors of AKMIDC, whereas the said order should have been issued by the Board of Directors of AKMIDC. The observation made by the learned High Court is the result of misconception as the Board was constituted vide notification dated 31.10.2012 and the order dated 25.06.2014, was approved by the said Board of Directors, vide order dated 09.04.2015. The petitioner/Respondent No. 1, herein, has neither challenged the order dated 09.04.2015, nor this point has been agitated in the writ petition. In this state of affairs, the learned High Court was not justified to accept the writ petition on the ground which is not part of the pleadings. This Court in a number of judgments has held that a Court has to go by the pleading of the parties and it has no jurisdiction to decide a case which has not been put forward by any party. We are fortified in our view from the case reported as "Azad Govt. & 3 others vs. Ayesha Shoukat & another" [2011 SCR 119], wherein it was observed in Para 6 as under: "6. The record reveals that none of the candidates, whose recommendations were forwarded by the Commission, refused to join the post nor the department informed the Commission to forward the recommendations of any other candidate. If this would have the position, than a question may arise that the candidate next in number can be appointed. The learned Judge clearly travelled beyond the pleadings of the parties. The Court has to go by the pleadings of the parties and it has no jurisdiction to decide a case which has not been put forward by any party. Until and unless the party specifically prays for a relief such relief cannot be granted. Our above finding is supported by the judgment of this Court delivered in the case titled Beero v. Mst. Said Bi [1992 SCR 286] and Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and 4 others v. M/s. Spintex Limited [1998 SCR 167]. It will be useful to reproduce the observations of this Court recorded in Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government and 4 others v. MIs Spintex Limited [1998 SCR 167]:- "The second procedural mistake is that a Court has to go by the pleadings of the parties and should not allow the parties to travel beyond them. The order of the Prime Minister which the learned Judge has ordered to be implemented does not find any mention in the writ petition. The mere fact that a photostat copy of the order was appended with the writ petition does not warrant that it should have been brought under consideration....."
In another case reported as "Hafiz Muhammad Abid vs. Azad Govt. & 4 others" [2014 SCR 1608], it was Observed as under: "8........When the fact of appointment of Respondent No. 5 came into the knowledge of the appellant then he has to amend the writ petition or challenged the notification through a separate writ petition. The appointment notification on the strength of which the appellant wants to built up his case in this Court was not challenged before any forum, therefore, no relief can be claimed which is not prayed. It is settled principle of law that no relief can be granted beyond the pleadings.
Reliance can be placed on a case reported as Azad Government and 2 others v. Syed Muhammad Afzal Shah and another [2003 SCR 22], wherein it has been observed that: "11. From the survey of case law, it becomes absolutely clear that the law stands settled on the point that the relief which is not the part of pleadings of a party cannot be given to it by the Courts as the civil law is the law of omission and commission."
Similarly, in another case reported as Raja Muhammad Saeed Khan v. Syed Khani Zaman Khan & 11 others [2006 SCR 271]. it has been held that: "It is well settled principle of law that the parties cannot go beyond their pleadings."
Even when the above said situation was confronted to the learned counsel for the appellant, he was unable to controvert the same. As the basic notification dated 09.06.2009, upon which the structure of the appellant's case could be built up was not challenged, therefore, we are not intended to discuss the other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant."
7. In view of the above, we are convinced, that the learned High Court has delivered the impugned judgment without adhering to the contents of the writ petition and the law on the subject matter. hence, the interference by this Court is warranted under law.
In view of the above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court dated 05.12.2019, is hereby set aside. Consequently, the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, herein, before the High Court is dismissed. No order as to costs.