1. CH. MUHAMMAD TAJ, J.---This appeal, with leave of the Court, is filed to challenge the validity of the judgment of the High Court dated 23-2-1994.
2. The facts briefly stated are that appellant, herein, was nominated for the M.B.,B.S. seat reserved for the State Subjects in the Medical Colleges of Pakistan by respondent No. 4, the Nomination Board of Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on the basis of .a merit list prepared by it.
3. Nazam Hussain, respondent No. 1, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, to challenge the nomination of appellant, herein, and one Ishtiaq; Ahmad, respondent No. 7, on the grounds that appellant was nominated by the Nomination Board in the year 1992-93 for the B. Pharmacy seat 'reserved fox State Subjects in the Department of B. Pharmacy, University of Punjab, Lahore, and due to his above nomination and admission against a reserved seat was debarred from being nominated against the M.B.,B.S. seat for the year 1993-94. The assertion about Ishtiaque Ahmad, the respondent No. 7, was that he joined Pakistan Military Academy who is not interested and has abandoned his right. According to him inn case of invalidation of above nominations respondent Nn. 1(petitioner in writ petition) becomes entitled to be nominated as he is No. 8 in merit list for the quota of six seats reserved in Medical Colleges of Pakistan, while the appellant and respondent No. '; are placed at serial Nos. 5 and 7 respectively in the merit list. The writ petition was accepted on 23-2-1994. Hence, this appeal.
4. Leave was granted to consider the points raised in the petition for leave to appeal. Ch. Ali Muhammad, the learned counsel for the appellant, has raised the following points in support of appeal through written arguments sent to the Registrar. of this Court:- (i)that Government notification issued on 2nd April, 1986 provides an alternative remedy of appeal before the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in presence of above remedy the resort to Constitutional jurisdiction is not permissible; (ii)that the High Court in its judgment (impugned) placed reliance on the written statement filed on behalf of Nomination Board and the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir through Mr. Muhammad Akram Mughal, the learned Additional Advocate --General, who had no authority to act as such. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at on the basis of above documents invalidates the impugned judgment; (iii)that no evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the fact of earlier nomination in favour of appellant. He further maintained that documents filed with writ petition are photo copies which are inadmissible and cannot be relied upon.
5. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, Advocate appearing for the opposite side, vehemently opposed the appeal through written arguments filed on the record.
6. So far as the objection raised by the counsel for the appellant with regard to the maintainability of writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy provided in instruction No. 20 of the notification of 2nd April, 1986 is concerned, there is no doubt that under the above instructions a remedy is provided but the existence of an alternative remedy creates a bar in filing of a writ petition only if the other remedy available is adequate and efficacious one. In nomination cases the time to decide the matter is an important factor. An appeal before the Government in nomination cases cannot be expeditiously decided as noticed by the superior Courts due to vast sphere of work to look after by the authority. The proposition came under consideration before this Court in a recent case Syed Mazhar-ul-Hussain Hamdani v. Zubina Nayyar and others (Civil Appeal No. 10 of 1994, decided on 30-3-1994), wherein it has been observed:- "So far as the argument that as the alternative remedy was available by way of appeal under instruction No. 20 of the instructions the writ was not competent is concerned, we are of the view that in the instant case, the remedy provided under instruction No. 20 cannot be regarded to be efficacious, speedy and appropriate, because the Government all along supported the case of the appellants and, thus, it cannot be said that the respondent had an efficacious remedy at her disposal by way of appeal to the Government."
7. In view of the above dictum of this Court a remedy of an appeal provided by instruction No. 20, referred above, cannot be considered to be an adequate one.
8. The next point raised by the counsel for .the appellant with regard to the authority of Additional Advocate-General to appear and act as counsel for the Nomination Board and Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, that is also found to have no substance for the simple reason that the point was not raised before the High Court either through an application or otherwise in the course of arguments. The Additional Advocate-- General is not expected to act as such without an authority but all the same matter could have been sorted out had it been raised during the course of proceedings before the High Court without that any comment for or against cannot be passed by this Court.
9. Respondent No. 1 in his writ petition before the High Court has specifically challenged the nomination on the basis of an earlier nomination made in favour of the appellant which was evasively denied by the appellant in answer to para. 7 of the amended writ petition. The petition was supported by documents Annexures `A', `B', `C' and `D'. Those documents are copies attested by the Secretary, Nomination Board, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and an affidavit in support of writ petition was also filed by the petitioner. The document Annexure `A' refers to an information through a letter written by the Nomination Board to the Department of B.
10. Pharmacy, Punjab University Lahore, with regard to the nomination of appellant. Annexure `B' is an information conveyed to the appellant for his nomination as such. Document Annexure `D' is a merit list prepared by the Nomination Board for the quota of reserved seats for B. Pharmacy Court for the year 1992-93 wherein the appellant is placed at serial No. 4. Annexure `C' refers to merit list prepared for the nomination of reserved seats for the Medical Colleges in Pakistan for State Subjects for the year 1993-94 wherein the appellant figures: at serial No. 5 and respondent, herein, at serial No. 8.
11. Taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record the fact of nomination of the appellant for B. Pharmacy Course for the year 1992-93 by the Nomination Board of Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is proved. The appellant's subsequent nomination for M.B"B.S. seat against the reserved quota for the year 1993-94 is a sufficient proof of his withdrawal from the earlier nomination and does not require any further proof. That fully attracts instruction No. 15 of the above notification and has rightly been so held by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
12. In light of the above discussion the judgment of the High Court is found to have been based on correct appreciation of facts and sound reasoning, requires no interference particularly the finding of fact arrived at by the High Court cannot be interfered with by this Court. Therefore, finding no force in this appeal it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.