1. ' Petitioner was a Senior Clerk in the service of Zilla Council, Rawalpindi. In pursuance to office order of Zilla Council, departmental promotion test was held on 18-5-1987. Petitioner along with some others appeared in the test and came out successful. Consequently, he was selected and promoted as Assistant in Basic Pay Scale No, 11 vide office order dated 16-6-1987. Against his promotion, on 16-7-1987, Nauroze, a Tax Inspector of Zilla Council, Rawalpindi preferred an appeal to Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi. On 17-9-1987, service appeal was entrusted to Director Local Government and Rural Development, Rawalpindi Division. By order dated 11-11-1987, appeal filed by respondent No, 3 was accepted and the order impugned in appeal giving promotion to the petitioner was set aside. Aggrieved by the decision, Muhammad Boota Azeemi petitioner has filed this petition under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
2. ' Mr. Mahmud-ul-Hasan Awan, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted two points. His first argument is that impugned order is violate of principles of natural justice. His second argument is that Director, Local Government and Rural Development had no jurisdiction to hear the service appeal. Mian Inam-ul-Haq, Advocate appearing for respondent No, 3 had not much to say in opposition. Both the points urged on behalf of the petitioner are of considerable weight and must be accepted. It was not denied that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party respondent in the appeal nor afforded a hearing before the impugned order was passed against him. It is an elementary principle of jurisprudence governing adjudications in our Courts that no order affecting person or property of another can he passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him. Impugned order is in clear breach of this fundamental principle. Similarly, it was not a case to be dealt with under the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1981 which gave appellate powers to the Director Local Government and Rural Development of the Division. Rule 17 of Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1981 applied only in case of a penalty imposed upon the servant of a Local Council. In this case, no penalty was imposed upon anybody. In fact, it was a case of promotion and was not covered by Efficiency and Discipline Rules. It is conceded on all hands that 'Service Rules' regulating appointment and promotion to the service in the District Council have not so far been framed by the Government under section 46 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979. At least, none has been pointed out. On the other hand, West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1963, have since been repealed by the Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983. Also Punjab Local Council (Appeal) Rules, 1980 are not attracted to the appeals by servants of Local Councils in matters relating to their service. In this view, impugned order is bad and cannot be upheld. In result, this petition succeeds. Impugned order is set aside and is declared to have been made without lawful authority. Obvious corollary of this declaration is that appeal filed by respondent No, 3 before the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi shall be deemed to be still pending requiring its decision afresh in accordance with law. Learned Commissioner to whose file the case is being sent shall implead Muhammad Boota Azeemi as respondent in the appeal and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to him shall record his decision on the I following points:-
(i) Whether any appeal against promotion is competent to his Court;
(ii) In case, it is found that appeal is incompetent, whether independent of that, Commissioner of the Division has any jurisdiction to interfere with the promotion made under provisions of Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979.
3. ' In addition to the above points, it shall be open to either party to raise all other legal and factual objections available to them under the law.
4. ' Records be returned. Counsel have been directed to cause appearance of their clients before the learned Court below on 30-11-1988.