BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- This appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment of the High Court announced on 18th of March, 1997, whereby three writ petitions were decided. This appeal relates to Writ Petition No.283 of 1996 titled Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq v. Azad Government and others, which was dismissed. The appellant, Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq, was also the petitioner in Writ Petition No.208 of 1996, which was accepted. Liaqat Ali Qureshi, respondent No.2 in this appeal, was the private respondent in both of them. The third writ petition was Writ Petition No.263 of 1996 titled Liaqat Ali Qureshi v. Azad Government and 2 others which was dismissed.
2. The background of the aforementioned writ petitions is that some posts of Tehsil Qazi and Tehsil Mufti were vacant and it was decided to fill them up on ad hoc basis. One post of Tehsil Qazi was reserved for District Poonch in pursuance of the quota policy. Appellant Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq.
And respondent No.2 Liaqat Ali Qureshi are both from District Poonch. On 24th of September, 1996, the appellant filed a Writ Petition, being No.208 of 1996, in which he prayed for a direction that Liaqat Ali Qureshi may not be appointed as Tehsil Qazi as he did not fulfil the requisite academic qualifications. The writ petition was Accepted and the High Court declared that Liaqat Ali Qureshi was not qualified for appointment as Tehsil Qazi. An appeal filed by Liaqat Ali Qureshi, by leave of the Court was accepted by this Court on 16th of April, 1997. The view taken by the High Court about the qualification of Liaqat Ali Qureshi was set aside and it was declared that he was qualified for appointment as Tehsil Qazi. The decision was given in Civil Appeal No.19 of 1997 titled Liaqat Ali Qureshi v. Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq. Consequently, Liaqat Ali Qureshi has been appointed as Tehsil Qazi and is working as such.
3. The other writ petition out of which the present appeal arises, being Writ Petition No.283 of 1996, was filed by Hafiz Muhammad Ishaque in connection with a dispute relating to the post of Tehsil Mufti reserved for District Poonch which was also to be filed on ad hoc basis. In the writ petition it was asserted by Hafiz Muhammad Ishaque that Liaqat Ali Qureshi was not eligible to be appointed as Tehsil Mufti. This writ petition was resisted by Liaqat Ali Qureshi contending that he was qualified for holding that post. He also raised a point that Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq was not an aggrieved person for the post of Tehsil Mufti as he was placed at serial number 3 in the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee and, therefore, he could not be appointed as Tehsil Mufti even if the writ petition was accepted. Another point raised by Liaqat Ali Qureshi was that the Vakalatnama attached with the writ petition was not signed by the petitioner and the writ petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground. This writ petition was dismissed after reaching the conclusion that Liaqat Ali Qureshi was academically qualified for the post of Tehsil Mufti.
4. During the hearing of this case it was vehemently contended by Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for respondent Liaqat Ali Qureshi, that the appeal had become infructuous because Liaqat Ali Qureshi was no longer interested in becoming Tehsil Mufti as he had already been appointed as Tehsil Qazi in pursuance of the declaration given by this Court that he was qualified to be appointed to that post. However, this position was not accepted by Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, the learned counsel for the appellant. He vehemently contended that Liaqat Ali Qureshi was not qualified to be appointed as Tehsil Mufti. He also submitted that he had crossed the statutory upper age limit of thirty-five years fixed for recruitment into Government service to which a period of five years and seven months was to be added in view of the relaxation given by the Government to ad hoc appointees. He contended that thus, Liaqat Ali Qureshi was forty-one years old when he applied for appointment.
5.In our view the appeal need not be decided on merits as it has become infructuous. The writ petition was filed because Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq and. Liaqat Ali Qureshi both were contesting for appointment as Tehsil Mufti, and j Hafiz Muhammad Ishaque wanted a direction to the Government not to make appointment of Liaqat Ali Qureshi as Tehsil Mufti as he was not qualified under rules. As already seen Liaqat Ali Qureshi is no longer interested for being appointed as Tehsil Mufti for the reason that he has already been appointed as A Tehsil Qazi. Therefore, a writ cannot be issued to it not to make appointment of Liaqat Ali Qureshi as Tehsil Mufti. Thus, the question whether Liaqat Ali Qureshi is qualified to be appointed as Tehsil Mufti is now only academic in nature. It is well-settled practice of this Court as well as that of Supreme Court of Pakistan that a decision is only given about live issues and academic questions are not answered. This practice is departed from in circumstances of exceptional nature but there is no such situation in the present case.
6. The finding about qualification of Tehsil Mufti was given in para. 15 of the judgment under appeal while in an earlier part of the judgment the High Court had held that Liaqat Ali Qureshi was not academically qualified for appointment as Tehsil Qazi. Para. 15 is in the following terms:-- "15. The case for appointment against the post of Tehsil Mufti is, however, different. The rules regulating the post of Tehsil Mufti, as stated above, do not subject the Asnad-holders to be supported by qualification in additional subjects as in case of Qaza Branch Rules. Thus, the additional qualification required for the Sanad-Holders for the post of Tehsil Qazi do not apply to the post of Tehsil Mufti."
7.Thus, the appeal having become infructuous is dismissed with no order as to costs.