Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J. The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 06.05.2024, passed in Writ Petition No. 2304/2021.
2. The essential facts of the case, leading to the filing of the captioned appeal are that the Wildlife and Fisheries department advertised several posts, including the post of Game Watcher (B-1), for village Rashian, vide advertisement dated 05.09.2020. Along with other candidates, the contesting parties, herein, also applied for the post of Game Watcher (B-1). After conducting the test and interview, the appellant, herein, was appointed against the post in question vide order dated 29.04.2021. Respondent No. 1, herein, challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before the High Court. After necessary proceedings, the learned High Court through the impugned judgment disposed of the writ petition in the following terms:- "In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order of Respondent No. 4 dated 29.04.2021 and the respondents are directed to make appointment in the light of impugned advertisement on constituency basis as per merit position within a period of three months. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to official respondents for compliance."
This judgment of the learned High Court is the subject matter of the captioned appeal by leave of the Court.
3. At the very outset, Mr. Muhammad Saghir Javid, the learned Advocate, representing the contesting respondent submitted that the instant appeal has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground.
4. In reply to the preliminary objection, Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khan Minhas, the learned Advocate, representing the appellant submitted that the appellant was not summoned properly. The appellant got knowledge of the impugned judgment on 16.09.2024 and thereafter, he has promptly filed the PLA/appeal, which is well within time from the date of knowledge.
On merits of the case, the learned counsel submitted that the appointment order of the appellant was issued on the recommendations of Selection Board No. 5. The respondent challenged the said order by filing a writ petition before the High Court but failed to array the Selection Board as party in the line of the respondents. It is a settled principle of law that without arraying the necessary party in the line of the respondents, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground. The learned High Court while handing down the impugned judgment failed to consider this important aspect of the mater and illegally set aside the appointment order of the appellant. He prayed for acceptance of appeal.
4-A. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Saghir Jeved, the learned Advocate, representing Respondent No. 1, defended the impugned judgment with vehemence. He submitted that the post in question pertains to Village Rashian. As per Condition No. 8 of the advertisement, only local residents of the relevant area were eligible to apply for the post of Game Watcher. It is an admitted position that the appellant belongs to Village Parsa, Tehsil Ourhi, District Jhelum Valley, and therefore, was not eligible for the said appointment. In such circumstances, the learned High Court has rightly set aside the appointment order of the appellant dated 29.04.2021. The learned Advocate, further submitted that the appointment order of the appellant was issued by the Director Wildlife, who has duly been arrayed as party in the line of the respondents, hence, the argument of the learned Advocate representing the appellant is misconceived. He prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates representing the parties and carefully examined the available record along with the impugned judgment. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to address the preliminary objection regarding the question of limitation. A perusal of the record reveals that the impugned judgment was rendered by the learned High Court on 06.05.2024. It appears that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant at the relevant date, nor was any ex-parte order passed against him. Thus, the judgment was delivered in the absence of the appellant. The appellant, in paragraph 5 of his appeal, has specifically asserted that he was not properly summoned and remained unaware of the proceedings. The appellant acquired knowledge of the impugned judgment on 16.09.2024 and thereafter, promptly filed the present appeal. In our considered view, the appellant has sufficiently explained the delay in filing the appeal, duly supported by an affidavit, which remains unrebutted, as no counter-affidavit has been filed to challenge the same. In these circumstances, the appeal, calculated from the date of knowledge, is well within the prescribed time. Accordingly, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent on the ground of limitation is hereby repelled.
6. A perusal of the record shows that Respondent No. 1 herein, filed the writ petition before the High Court, wherein, he prayed for the following relief: "In view of the above it is therefore most humbly prayed on behalf of petitioner that by accepting the writ petition an appropriate writ may kindly be issued in favour of petitioner, the impugned order dated 29.04.2021 may very kindly be set aside, having been issued against, the law, rules, procedure, advertisement and against the judgments of this Hon'ble Court and the Apex Court. It is further prayed that the official respondents may very kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner as Game Watcher B-01 of village Rashian Tehsil & District Hattian Bala, AJK, being fully qualified and the local resident of the same.
Any other relief if the Hon'ble Court deem roper should also be granted in the interest of justice."
It is evident from the prayer clause reproduced above that the petitioner/Respondent No. 1, herein, sought annulment of the order dated 29.04.2021, which was issued by the Director Wildlife and Fisheries based on the recommendations of the Selection Board. While filing the writ petition the contesting respondent has arrayed the Director Wildlife and Fisheries but failed to array the Selection Board No. 5, on the recommendations of which the appointment order was issued, as party in the line of the respondents. According to the spirit of constitutional provisions of Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974, the necessary party is one whose action is challenged in the writ petition. In this case, the action of the Selection Board has been challenged.
The Selection Board/Committee is a legal person and in view of the peculiar facts of this case unless the same is arrayed as party, the writ petition is not maintainable. In this state of affairs, it was imperative for the petitioner/Respondent No. 1, herein, to array the Selection Board as a necessary party in the writ petition. Failure to do so rendered the petition defective and legally untenable. The non-joinder of a necessary party goes to the root of the case, affecting the maintainability of the petition. The principle regarding the necessity of impleading all relevant parties, particularly those whose recommendations or decisions are under challenge, has been well-settled by this Court in several precedents. In Shafqat Hayat vs. Muhammad Shahid Ashraf and 18 others [2005 SCR 57], it was explicitly held: "18. The writ was not properly constituted as the impugned orders were passed on the recommendations of the Selection Committee. However, the selection authority was not impleaded in the line of answering respondents before the High Court. In Qazi Liaqat Ali Qureshi vs. Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq and 3 others [1997 SCR 239] it was laid down that if a necessary party in whose absence no effective writ could be issued was not impleaded, the writ is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. The same view was repeated in cases titled Muhammad Resham Khan vs. Chairman Inspection Team and 3 others [PLJ 1990 SC (AJK) 38), Muhammad Shafi vs Feroz Khan and others [1994 SCR 19], Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government and others vs. Gohar Rehman and others [1996 SCR 112] and Kh. Ghulam Qadir and 5 others vs. Divisional Forest Officer Demarcation and 3 others [1996 SCR 161].
The identical proposition came under consideration of this Court in the case titled Saima Fareed and others vs. Divisional Director Schools and others (Civil Appeal No. 220 of 2015, decided on 5.4.2017), wherein, it was observed as under: "... All the orders annexed with the appeal speak that the same have been issued on the recommendations of Selection Committee, thus, in view of the factual proposition, the validity of the act of the Selection Committee is the basis of main controversy. The Selection Committee as a legal person has not been arrayed in the writ petition as party. Although, the Chairperson, Secretary and one member has been arrayed in their individual capacity but it is the spirit of constitutional provisions of Section 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 that the necessary party is one whose action has been challenged in the writ petition. In this case, the action of the Chairperson, Secretary or Member of the Selection Committee has not been challenged rather the action of the Selection Committee is challenged. The Selection Committee is a legal person and in view of the peculiar facts of this case unless the same is arrayed as party the writ petition is not maintainable. In this state of affairs, the High Court has rightly applied the principle of law laid down by this Court. On this proposition the impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity."
In view of the-above, it can safely be held that the writ petition filed by the contesting respondent before the High Court, without impleading the Selection Board, was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The argument advanced by learned counsel for Respondent No. 1, that the Director of Wildlife was a proper party, in view of the cited case law (supra) has no substance. Having reached the conclusion that the writ petition was not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed solely on this ground, there is no necessity to address the other issues raised.
The result of the above discussion is that while accepting this appeal the impugned judgment passed by the learned High Court dated 06.05.2024, is hereby set aside, Consequently, the writ petition filed by the contesting respondent before the High Court being filed incompletely is dismissed. No order as to costs.