' RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This order will dispose of Appeals Nos. 746 and 747 of 1994. Both the appeals contain common questions of facts and law and are directed against one and the same order. We, therefore, intend to dispose of these appeals through this single order. The appeals have been filed against Order No,8188-134-XG, dated 25-4-1994 of Chief Conservator of Forests, Muzaffarabad.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in Appeal No, 746 the appellant Parvaiz Akhtar was promoted as Kuth Supervisor against a vacant post under Order No,198 of 1993-94, 8923-25/94, dated 12-4-1994 and in Appeal No,747 Mian Muhammad Hayat was promoted as Forester B-7 under Order No, Forests 199 of 1993-94 dated 12-4-1994. In Appeal No,746 the appellant Parvaiz Akhtar was appointed as Dipot Guard on 11-8-1988. One Altaf-uz-Zaman was promoted as Forest Guard under Order No,36, dated 8-2-1992 by Divisional Forest Officer, Kairan Forest Division. The appellant Parvaiz Akhtar filed an appeal against this order before Conservator of Forests, Mizaffarabad who passed the Order No,198 in favour of the appellant. The Foresters/Forest Guards Association through its President sent a letter dated 22-4-1994 to the Chief Conservator of Forests. He also took notice of the matter and cancelled the order of the Conservator of Forests. In Appeal No,747 appellant Mian Muhammad Hayat was initially appointed as Assistant Field Supervisor on 21-3-1991 and was promoted as Kuth Supervisor on 1-2-1992. This order was also cancelled by Chief Conservator of Forests vide the impugned order. The view of the Chief Conservator of Forests was that both the promotions were affected in violation of the rules of the Department.
3. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
4. The argument of the counsel for appellants is that there was no regular appeal against the orders of the Conservator of Forests on behalf of any of the aggrieved civil servants. The Chief Conservator of Forests cancelled the orders of the Conservator of Forests on a letter of an Association which was not an aggrieved party and also the Chief Conservator of Forests could not exercise powers of revision in this matter because powers of revision could only be exercised by the Government under Rule 10 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991. As far the, legal position is concerned the argument of the counsel for appellants appears to be correct. The impugned order was passed by Chief Conservator of Forests cancelling the order of the Conservator of Forests without being there any appeal filed by an aggrieved civil servant and on a letter of an Association which was also not an aggrieved party under the abovementioned Appeal Rules. The powers of revision of an order of Subordinate Authority has been given to the Government and it is the Government alone which may pass any order as it may deem fit on examining any record which has been called for and examined by the Government. The question, however, here arises whether the impugned order is an order passed under appeal. The Chief Conservator of Forests in next higher Authority to the Conservator of Forests and any order passed by the Conservator of Forests is appealable before the Chief Conservator of Forests. But as per perusal of the record it is clear that there was no appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forests by any of the civil servants who were entitled to file an appeal before him. The main fact that he is an Appellate Authority under the rules does not mean that any order passed by him without any regular appeal would amount to an order passed in appeal. The order passed by Chief Conservator of Forests appears to be illegal in the sense that it was passed without an appeal by an entitled civil servant and also the Chief Conservator of Forests had no powers of revision. The position being so it is to be seen as to what is the legal effect of the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests. The counsel for respondents has contended that the order has been passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests as Head of the attached Department. This order affects the terms and conditions of the service of the appellants and since the order altered to their disadvantage the terms and conditions of their service it was an original order and its effects could only be avoided by the appellants by filing the appeal to the Appellate Authority of the Chief Conservator of Forests.
5. We have given our deep consideration to the point raised by the counsel for the parties. The order may be invalid as argued by the counsel for appellants but it is in fact an order which interprets to the disadvantage of the terms and conditions of the service of the appellants and unless the appellants proceed to avoid the consequences of this order by filing appeal or representation against the order it will hold the ground and continue to affect the terms and conditions of their service. The appellants could only avoid the effects of the impugned order by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appellants have failed to avail of legal remedy of appeal and without first exhausting the departmental remedies they cannot file the appeal before this Tribunal. Both the appeals are, therefore, incompetent and liable to be dismissed.
6. In view of the above discussion we dismiss these appeals without making any order as to costs.