RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--- This appeal is against order NoA29.ST (7202)/3, dated 10-10-1991 whereby the respondent-- Government rejected ,representation dated 14-10-1990 filed on behalf of appellant by her husband.
Department on 13-2-1974. She passed the B.Ed. Examination on 11-12-1976 and was allowed selection grade with effect from 15-10-1979. The respondents Joined service in Education Department on dates subsequent to that of the appellant. Appellant received a letter wherein she was asked to give her consent as Head Mistress against the vacant vacancies. She requested that her seniority may be restored in the Municipality Area of Muzaffarabad. Appellant was appointed officiating Head Mistress in Girls High School, Chella Bandi on 29-4-1986. The seniority list was circulated and appellant was shown at serial No.2 whereas the names of the respondents appeared at different positions of low level and thus the appellant was senior to all the respondents. The respondents who were junior to appellant were promoted as Head Mistresses and temporarily later on confirmed in the same position thereby ignoring the seniority of the appellant.
3. Objections have been filed on behalf of the respondents, they have controverted the allegations contained in the memorandum of the appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. The respondents have objected to maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the order appealed against was passed on the representation made by the husband of the appellant who was not an aggrieved civil servant and order passed at the behest of the husband of appellant is not appealable before this Tribunal. The submission of counsel for respondents appears to be correct. Under Rule 4 of Azad Jammu and Kahsmir Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991 only the civil servant is entitled to appeal to the Appellate Authority from an original order passed by an Authority. The appellant had a right to file an appeal to the Appellate Authority against order, which affected the conditions of service of appellant. A representation is allowed under section 21 of Civil Servants Act, 1976 and Rule 9 of Appeal Rules where no provision for an appeal exists in respect of any order which alters the conditions of service of civil servant to his or her disadvantage. The husband of appellant is not a civil servant. He was, therefore, not entitled to prefer an appeal or make representation to the Appellate Authority and order so passed erroneously by any authority cannot be impugned before this Tribunal. This appeal suffers from a patent and legal infirmity and is liable to be dismissed.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has prayed that an observation to the effect that the terms and conditions of service of appellant have been interpreted to her disadvantage may be made.
We are afraid, we cannot accept this prayer for the reasons that the appeal is not being decided on merits
7. Under the circumstances this appeal being incompetent hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.