SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.--- This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 12-3-1998, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, was dismissed on the ground of laches.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Municipal Magistrate on ad hoc bass on 3-3-1991 in the Municipal Corporation, Mirpur. The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Local Government Board invited applications for filling in the aforesaid post on regular basis.--in response to the notice, the appellant also applied for (sic) being appointed on the post on which he was already serving on ad hoc basis. However, after fixing the date for test and interview, the date was changed by respondent No.2 with mala fide intention to accommodate a person of its own choice. The appellant appeared in test and interview etc. And secured second position in written test while 3rd position in the interview. According to the appellant, the qualification for the appointment on the said post was that the candidate should be Law Graduate and must have three years experience in legal field but respondent No.4, who did not have the experience of three years, was illegally appointed as Municipal Magistrate in violation of the relevant rules. The High Court, after taking necessary proceedings in the writ petition, dismissed the same holding that the writ petition was filed after two years and six months of the appointment of respondent No.4 and, thus, it was hit by the laches.
3. Ch. Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the High Court could not issue the direction sought by the appellant, herein, in form of mandamus to appoint appellant, herein, instead of respondent No.4, on the ground that the appellant filed the writ petition after the expiry of period of more than two years, and thus, the writ petition was badly hit by laches. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the High Court has ignored the fact that the appellant, herein, has also sought a relief in form of quo warranto to call upon the respondent No.4 to, show under what authority of law he was holding the office. The case of the appellant in the writ petition was that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed on the post in question because he did not have experience of three years as has, been stipulated in the relevant rules governing his appointment. The parties in the High Court are at variance on the point as to whether the respondent No.4 had the experience of three years or not but no finding has been given on this point by the High Court, there is also no finding on the point as to whether the said condition of "experience" was relaxed by the competent Authority or not. However, the High Court has itself observed in the impugned judgment that it is not necessary for the petitioner in a writ of quo warranto to be an aggrieved person. This implies that the High Court was conscious of the fact that this is a composite writ petition in which the reliefs of mandamus as well as quo warranto have been prayed for. Therefore, the High Court should have considered the relief of quo warrranto prayed for by the appellant but same has not been done.
4. Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, has argued that a person who seeks relief for himself in a writ of quo warranto, the writ entails for dismissal even to the extent of relief of quo warranto. He has relied upon a case reported as Khan Muhammad Khan (sic) Lah. 125 wherein it has been observed that a person seeking writ of quo warranto need not be an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 98 of the relevant Constitution of Pakistan. There is no quarrel with the aforesaid principle but the same had no relevancy to the case in hand. In the instant case the writ of mandamus has been refused to the appellant, inter alia, on the ground of laches but nothing has been said in the impugned judgment as to why the relief of quo warranto prayed for was not considered. The learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that a writ of mandamus and quo warranto could not be claimed in the same writ petition. It may be stated that there is no bar to claim such reliefs in one writ petition. This Court has held in a number of cases that a writ of quo warranto and mandamus etc. Could be claimed in the same writ petition. A reference is made to an unreported judgment titled Raja Muhammad Azad Khan v. Vice--- Chancellor and others Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1998, decided on 17-7-1998, wherein it was observed as under:------- " .... What was challenged was the permanent incumbency of the appellant which has been found unlawful. The result is that the disputed post is available for a permanent incumbent and in that sense it is vacant. This part of the judgment of the High Court, therefore, within the parameters of a writ of quo warranto."
5. Thus, the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent that the relief in form of writ of quo warranto could not be granted in a writ of mandamus is not tenable., <p.m></p.m>