RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal is directed against Notification No. Admin/A-1(13)/Section V/95, dated 21-6-1995.
2. The facts as stated in the appeal are that the appellant was appointed as Entomologist on 17-7- 1978 and was promoted as Entomologist B-18 on 3-10-1983. The post of Entomologist was later on re-designated as Senior Scientific Officer Health through order dated 1-11-1988. The appellant was appointed as Ex-Officio Deputy Secretary Health on 7-3-1989 and as Deputy Secretary Health on 24-2-1991. The appellant was appointed as Additional Secretary on 1-9-1992. The lien of appellant was, however, re-transferred in the Health Department on 25-11-1993. The appellant filed an appeal against order dated 25-11-1993 before this Tribunal which appeal was dismissed on 18-4-1995.
Against the order dated 18-4-1995 the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court repelled the contention of appellant that the posting of appellant as Additional Secretary was on permanent basis.
3. The appellant had filed review petition against Notification dated 25-11-1993 before the Government. The review petition was heard by Mr. Muhammad Yousaf, Special Assistant to Prime Minister who was delegated the powers of Government for the disposal of appeals/review petitions etc. Vide Notification No. S&GAD/H-6(36)/R/VI/91, dated 23-12-1992. The Special Assistant dismissed the review petition of appellant but made the following observations:-- "The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is recommended that the Government may consider him for promotion to B-20 in other departments, including the post of Secretary to the Government, whenever there are vacancies available, as his prospects of promotion beyond Grade-19 in his parent department do not exist for non-medical staff."
As a consequence of that finding Notification No. Admin/A-1(13)/SV/95, dated 21-6-1995 was issued which is subject-matter of this appeal.
4. The written objections have been filed on behalf of respondent. It has been claimed in the written objections that the appellant has no locus standi and is not an aggrieved person within the meaning of section 4 of the Azad Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975.
5. We have heard the counsel for parties and have gone through the record
6. The contention of the counsel for appellant is that the order dated 21-6-1995 has not been expressed in terms of the decision of Special Assistant. The argument of the counsel is that the observations made by the Special Assistant reproduced above should have been incorporated in the impugned Notification. The Notification dated 25-I1-1993 against which the appellant filed a review petition before the Government and as a result the impugned Notification has been issued was the subject-matter of previous proceedings before this Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was pleased to declare vide its judgment dated 14-10-1995 passed in Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995 that the appointment of appellant as Additional Secretary was not on permanent basis. The matter having been once decided by the Supreme Court cannot be re- adjudicated upon in any other subsequent proceedings. The impugned Notification was issued on 21-6-1995 whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the matter vide its judgment dated 14-JO- 1995. The facts on the basis of which the Notification dated 21-6-1995 was issued have been decided finally by the Supreme Court and, therefore, further adjudication of those facts cannot be made by this Tribunal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. The Special Assistant dismissed the review petition of appellant and it was, rightly done so. The observations/recommendations made by the Special Assistant do not create any right in favour of appellant for promotion and, therefore, these recommendations if not included in the impugned.
Notification do not create any right of appeal to the appellant. The Government may, however, consider the case of the appellant for adjustment in the Civil Secretariat as recommended by the Special Assistant if it is permissible under law.
8. In light of the above-stated facts we dispose of this appeal accordingly and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.