' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.- -- This is an application under section 45 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act read with sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1993 which was filed to seek initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against Secretary Forests of the Government as well as Chief Conservator of Forests. The application has been made by three Range Officers of the Forest Department.
2. Briefly stated, the averments made in the application are that against the posts of Range Officer B-16, a number of Deputy Rangers (B-9) and Foresters (B-7) have been appointed by the respondents which was a flagrant violation of judgments of this Court in cases of Mubashar-ul- Haq v. Azad Government (PLJ 1990 SC (AJ&K) 660), Muhammad Rashid Choudhry v. Chairman, AKLASC and others (1993 PLC (C.S.) 1201) and Doctor Khawaja Mushtaq Ahmad v. Azad Government and others (1995 PLC (C.S) 410) wherein it was laid down that a civil servant could not be posted or transferred to a post in higher grade. It was explained .In the aforesaid judgments that a civil servant can be appointed to a higher post only on acting charge basis, current charge basis or officiating basis in light of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. The aforesaid rule of law was reiterated in some other cases. The latest judgment on this point is the judgment in Civil Appeal No,93 of 1998 titled Muhammad Yaqoob Khan v. Secretary Forest and another, decided on 16-10-1998 which relates to the Forest Department of all these judgments some of the senior Government functionaries kept on making illegal orders in violation of the law laid down by this Court with the result that applications were moved that the relevant functionaries should be proceeded against for contempt of Court as they were wilfully disobeying the law laid down by this Court. The present application is the latest on the subject. During the preliminary investigations it was found that thirty-three junior officials had been appointed as Range Officers (B-16).
3. During the pendency of this application, Sardar Riaz Ahmad Khan, Secretary Forests, and Mr. Rashid Ahmad Katal, Chief Conservator of Forests, have ' filed written report to the effect that all the thirty-three civil servants who had been appointed to higher posts have been sent back to their original posts and now there was not a single case in the Forest Department about which allegation of disobedience may be levelled.
4. They have at three different stages filed unqualified apologies in writing and have also thrown themselves at the mercy of the Court. They have been attending the A Court on each date of hearing personally presumably to show, as stated in their comments, that they hold the judiciary in highest esteem.
5. It is unfortunate that clear verdict of this Court under reference was violated by the respondents but it has been the consistent policy of this Court to sparingly use the law of contempt and that also with the objective of upholding the dignity of the Court.
6. After the rectification of the wrongs mentioned above, Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, the learned counsel for the petitioners, gracefully agreed with the observation of this Court that the prestige of the Court has been upheld when the illegal appointments were cancelled by the respondents.
7. It was rightly stated by Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, the learned counsel for the petitioners, that in Islam there is great emphasis on the principle that those occupying high position in society should also be dealt with like those who have no such position. It seems to be appropriate to observe here that the senior functionaries of the Government owe to the Constitution to act in aid of this Court and, notwithstanding the fact whether action is taken against them or not, they are supposed to demonstrate by their actions that what prevails in Azad Jammu and Kashmir is rule of law, not arbitrariness.
8. Hoping that this is last case in which law laid down by this Court has been violated, we decide not to proceed against the respondents by accepting their unqualified apologies.
Apologies accepted.