RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN): --Malik Riaz Ahmad appellant has preferred this appeal against Notification No. P(1)--139/ seen meem/916-37/84, dated 25-4-1984 and Order No. Seen meem /4741/90, dated 30-9-1990 issued by Revenue Secretariat.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was appointed as Naib---Tehsildar against the quota reserved for subordinate service in 1984 and was promoted to the post of Tehsildar on 1-3- 1985 on the recommendations of Selection Board against the quota of ministerial service. The respondents Nos.3 to 13 were given temporary promotions against the posts of direct quota in violation of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars Appointments and Promotions Rules, 1980 which provide that 50% vacancies shall be filled by initial recruitment on the basis of quota system fixed by the Government. Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 have further been promoted as Extra Assistant Commissioners in Scale B-17. The appointments and further promotions have been allowed to jeopardize the rights of those eligible persons including appellant who could have been otherwise promoted if the rules were followed.
3. Respondents have raised preliminary objection to the affect that the impugned Notification was passed by the Government and no review was maintainable against the said Notification before the Secretary, Revenue.
4. It is an admitted fact that the impugned Notification was issued under the Executive Authority of the Government and it could only be reviewed by the Government as provided under first proviso to Rule 4 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991. The Revenue Secretariat rightly communicated to the appellant through letter No. Seen meem/4741/90, dated 30-9-1990 that his review was found without any substance and was, therefore, rejected. The legal position in this appeal is very clear. Appellant has failed to first exhaust his right of seeking his remedy from the Government by way of review application. The present appeal is, therefore, not maintainable before this Tribunal.
5. In view of the above, we see no force in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.