1. ' SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, ACTG. C.J.---This appeal has been directed against the order of the High Court dated 15-9-1991, whereby the writ petition of the appellants, herein, was dismissed.
2. The appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking writ of mandamus against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the order of the Prime Minister which was communicated to Secretary Works, respondent No,2, on 30-5-1991.
3. ' Brief facts of the case are that the appellants and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted as Assistant Engineers from the posts of Sub-Engineers on 30-9-1989. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted as Assistant Engineers against 20% quota reserved for Sub-Engineers under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service of Engineers (Buildings, Roads and Electricity) Rules, 1979, while the appellants were promoted against the quota reserved for Graduate Engineers till the suitable candidates holding the Graduate Degrees were available for the appointments. Subsequently, when the Graduate Engineers became available, they were duly appointed against the posts which were held by the appellants. The appellants approached the Prime Minister by way of a review petition against the orders whereby the appellants were reverted to their original posts while the Graduate Engineers were inducted into the service instead of the appellants. The Prime Minister, on 29-5-1991, passed the order on the review petition of the appellants as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' According to the appellants, the Secretary Works was approached in the matter and was requested to issue the order in pursuance of the abovementioned order of the Prime Minister, but he showed his reluctance to implement the same. Consequently, the appellants filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for the writ of mandamus against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to implement the order of the Prime Minister. The learned Single Judge in the High Court opined that as the order dated 28-5-1991 had been implemented, the same could not be annulled by the Prime Minister without hearing the respondents; and that the order should have been routed through the Chief Secretary so that the violation of law in the matter could have been brought in the notice of the Prime Minister.
4. ' We have heard the arguments and gone through the file. Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for the appellants, has argued that the Secretary Works was bound to implement the order of the Prime Minister and he was not justified to ignore the same on the ground that it was violate of any rules on the subject. It may be stated that there is no controversy that the promotion of the appellants was a stop-gap arrangement; and in view of the provisions contained in sub-rules (2) and (4) of rule 10-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, no right can be said to have accrued to the appellants on the basis of their ad hoc promotion as Assistant Engineers. The contesting respondents were duly appointed by the initial recruitment in accordance with the rules on the subject. It is admitted at the Bar that the order whereby the appellants were 'reverted' and the respondents were appointed, had been acted upon as the same had been issued by the authority concerned. Thus, the order could not be recalled by the Prime Minister without giving an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. It is well-settled principle of law that any order which is violate of the principle of 'audi alteram partum' would be deemed to be a nullity in the eye of law. The appointments of the respondents could not be annulled without affording an opportunity of hearing to them; nobody can be condemned unheard.
5. ' Even otherwise, under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, the order issued by an 'authority' can be recalled, rescinded, amended or varied only if the final step in the matter has not been taken. In the instant case the order of the appointment of the respondents had been issued and, thus, it cannot be said that the executive authority had locus poenitentiae to recall the order of appointment of the respondents, without affording an opportunity of hearing to them. It is celebrated principle of law that the principle of audi alteram partem' should be strictly adhered to.
6. ' The learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that the Secretary Works was bound to implement the impugned order. He was cited the following authorities in support of his contention: ' In Allama Rehmatullah Arshad, M.P.A. v. Province of West Pakistan (PLD 1963 BJ 19) the matter involved was regarding the payment of arrears of salary of a Government servant. It was held that the Governor, as executive head, was competent to pass order of the payment under Articles 80 and 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1962. It was opined that the order of the Governor must be implemented because the concerned authorities were bound by the order. It is evident that these observations were made in a case where there was no question of legality of the order of the Governor. No question of recalling or amending the order already issued was involved in that case.
7. Thus, the same has no relevancy to the facts of the case in hand.
8. ' The other unreported case of this Court entitled Azad Government v. Altaf Hussain Bokhari (Civil Appeal No, 2 of .1991, decided on 20-10-1991) was also cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his contention. The appeal in that case was dismissed by this Court on a technical ground and no verdict was given on the point as to whether in the circumstances of that case the Chief Secretary was bound to implement the order of the Prime Minister or not. However, there can be hardly any doubt that the Chief Secretary or, For that matter, any other civil servant is bound to follow the directions, instructions or orders of the Prime Minister but the question as to whether in a particular case, one can get the relief by resorting to the writ jurisdiction is altogether a different question. This is well-settled principle of law that a person seeking redress of his grievance by resorting to the writ jurisdiction, must come with clean hands. If it is found that the person- seeking relief by way of writ petition has no legal or moral case, then irrespective of the fact that the Chief Secretary or, . For that matter, any other departmental authority is bound to obey the orders of the Prime Minister, the High Court may refuse to issue a writ of mandamus in exercise of its discretionary powers vested in it. As the order which was sought to be implemented by the appellants was passed' in violation of the principle of ' audi alteram partem', the High Court could rightly refuse to issue a writ of mandamus for the implementation of the same irrespective of the fact as to whether the Secretary Works was bound to carry out the same or not. The writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in perpetuation of an illegal order.
9. ' In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed.
10. No order as to the costs.