' RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed against the order dated 20-6- 1993 of Board of Revenue whereby the service appeal of appellant was rejected.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was transferred from the Department of Custodian and was appointed Patwari in the Revenue Department on 29-12-1984. The post of Patwari was, however, not available and appellant was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Department and worked as such upto year 1989 and thereafter he was appointed Patwari on 8-4-1989 against the post vacated on account of retirement of Muhammad Sadiq Patwari. Muhammad Azeem respondent filed an appeal against the order of appointment of appellant before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide his order dated 30-7-1990 accepted the appeal of Muhammad Azeem and cancelled the order of appointment of the appellant and in his place the respondent was appointed as Patwari. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of Commissioner and as a result of that appeal the impugned order of Board of Revenue was passed.
3. The date of 25-10-1994 was fixed for arguments. On the said date the counsel for respondents were present. Counsel for appellant was not present. The clerk of counsel for appellant did, however, appear when the case was called for arguments in the morning. The Clerk of Advocate requested that the Advocate for appellant had returned from his home last night and could not prepare the arguments. The Clerk was, however, directed to notify to Advocate that opportunity for arguments is being granted upto 1-10 p.m. And the counsel may be informed to attend the Court and argue the case. The learned counsel did not appear for arguments at the fixed hours, therefore, we decided to hear the arguments of counsel for respondents. It is unfortunate that on one pretext and the other cases are being prolonged unnecessarily creating hardship to the litigant civil servants and the Government.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for respondents and carefully perused the record. The learned Commissioner proceeded to accept the appeal of respondent Muhammad Azeem on the grounds that he was an approved candidate Patwari of the District and has preferential right of appointment as against appellant . Who is resident of District Poonch. Muhammad Azeem respondent has been working in Settlement Organization and from that Department he was working in Demarcation as Patwari. He was to be first adjusted in the Revenue Department in view of instructions issued by Revenue Secretariat under Policy Letter No, cry/ /7698-7710/89,dated 27- 11-1989.
5. The learned counsel for respondents have argued that the original order in this case was passed by Deputy Commissioner, Kotli. Muhammad Azeem respondent filed an appeal against that order before the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner in appeal was final and no further second appeal was competent before the Board of Revenue. The arguments of the learned counsel for respondents appeared to be correct. It is a settled principle of law that any order passed in appeal is final and second appeal against the appellate order is incompetent. Reference can be made to sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appeal)
Rules, 1991. The second argument of the Counsel for respondents is that appellant is a resident of District Poonch and according to the Departmental Rules non-resident of the District cannot be appointed as Patwari. The respondents in their written objections have clearly pointed out that appellant is not a resident of District Kotli and is a resident of District Poonch. In support of their written objections they have filed the State subject of the appellant; his Matric Certificate and the copy of Register of allotment of land in the name of father of the appellant. In his replication the appellant has only stated that respondents have not taken a clear stand in their written objections their written statement is evasive in nature. The respondents had clearly stated with relevant documents that the appellant was a resident of District Poonch. A duty was cast on the appellant to rebut the claim of the respondents. In fact the reply of the appellant is evasive and amounts to acceptance of the stand of the respondents. The decision of the Commissioner appears to be correct on this ground as well. The appeal has to preferred before this Tribunal against the final order within thirty days of the communication of said order. The order of the Commissioner is dated 31-7-1990. The appeal could be filed against this order within one month in this Tribunal whereas the appellant has come to the Tribunal on 5-7-1993 after filing an incompetent appeal before the Board of Revenue. The appeal is thus hopelessly time-barred and liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
16. The above discussion leads us to the conclusion that there is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.