' RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---The appellant has challenged Notifications Nos. r U"/2465-76/92, dated 8-5-1992, NoAdim /M-G/A-1(76)/91, dated 22-2-1992 and Notification No, Admin/MG/A-1(67)/91, dated 27-1-1992 through this appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant was promoted as Tehsildar on 15-11-1975. The appellant is senior-most Tehsildar. His name appears on Seniority List at Serial No,3 whereas respondents Nos. 3 to 5 are shown at Serial Nos. 9, 17 and 18. The respondents who are admittedly junior to the appellant have been allowed promotion as acting Extra-Assistant Commissioner. The appellant preferred a review application before respondent No,1 which has not been decided and after the expiry of ninety days the appellant has filed this appeal.
3. The respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 failed to appear and contest the appeal despite service of the notices. They were, therefore, proceeded ex parte. Respondent No,4 has only contested this appeal and has filed his written objections. The respondent No,4 has denied the claim of the appellant and also raised the preliminary objection that the appeal is not maintainable.
4. In this appeal the first date fixed for arguments was 6-6-1994. Thereafter, almost eighteen adjournments were granted mostly on the request made on behalf of the counsel for appellant or absence of the counsel for appellant for arguments. The case came up for arguments on 10-9- 1995. The Clerk of the counsel for appellant was present in the Court who stated that the counsel for appellant has gone to C.M.H. We kept this appeal pending and ultimately it was taken at 2 p.m.
The counsel for appellant did not make any appearance and we decided to hear the counsel for respondent No,4 in terms of Rule 19 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal (Procedure)
Rules, 1976. It is unfortunate that the counsel for the appellant has shown unprofessional behaviour in the conduct of this appeal.
5. The counsel for respondent No,4 has contended that the appellant is not an aggrieved person and, therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable. The counsel for respondent No,4 has substantiated his contention on the basis of the facts that the appellant was not qualified to be promoted as Extra-Assistant Commissioner under the rules on the subject. The counsel has taken us through service rules relating to the parties which are known as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Extra-Assistant Commissioners (Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 1980, wherein the qualifications for appointment by promotion have been prescribed. Rule 7 of the said Rules reads as under:--- "7. Oualifications.---(1) No person shall be appointed to the service by promotion unless he is a Graduate from a recognized University and undertaken successfully the training and passed and departmental examination in the required standard as prescribed for members of such service of the Government of the Punjab."
' The provisions of this Rule are mandatory and a person who is not a Graduate cannot be appointed to the service by promotion. The appellant, in his replication has stated that he has passed the departmental examination and he is also a Graduate. The documents annexed with the replication are:
(i) Letter No, 2948-93/3254-E(F)IV, dated the 10th August, 1993 from the Secretary to Government of the Punjab Revenue Department to the Section Officer, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan, wherein it has been stated that the appellant has passed the Revenue papers in higher standard.
(ii) Pass result intimation Certificate issued by the University of Punjab which shows that the appellant appeared in BA. Examination under Roll No, 68978 and has passed and said Examination."
6. The first document shows that the appellant appeared in the departmental examination of Tehsildars and Naib-Tehsildars of the Punjab Province held in February, 1993. Certificate of the University of the Punjab shows that the appellant passed the B.A. First Annual Examination held in May, 1993. The impugned orders were passed on different dates in the year 1992. The appellant was not a Graduate and had not passed the departmental examination in that year. The appellant did not possess necessary qualifications for eligibility for appointment to the service by promotion at the time when orders of promotion of respondents were issued. There are, therefore, valid grounds to accept the contention of counsel for respondent No,4. Appellant is, not an aggrieved civil servant and the present appeal filed by him is incompetent under section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975 which provides that only a civil servant aggrieved by the order is entitled to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.
7. In view of the above we find no force in this appeal which is dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.