1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---This appeal has been filed, after obtaining leave of this Court, to call in question an admission order passed by the learned Judge in the High Court on 30th March, 1998 passed in respect of a writ petition titled Naeem Ahmad Khan v. Vice-Chancellor AJ&K University and others.
2. ' Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent, Naeem Ahmad Khan, felt aggrieved by promotion of the appellant, Syed Waqar Hussain, to the post of a Superintendent in the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and filed appeal against his promotion order before the Syndicate on 18th February, 1997. On 5th of June, 1997 the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court in which he challenged the promotion order and alternatively prayed that the Vice-Chancellor may be directed to place his appeal before the Syndicate.
3. ' In the writ petition the respondent also brought on record the following facts:--
(1) That earlier on 28th of October, 1996 the respondent was promoted as Assistant with effect from 1st January, 1984. The appellant filed appeal against that order with the Vice-Chancellor which was not decided till the filing of the writ petition on 5th June, 1997.
(2) Without deciding the appeal mentioned above, the respondent was further promoted as Superintendent B-16 on 18th January, 1997. The appellant filed appeal against this order on 18th February, 1997 which was left undecided till the filing of the writ petition on 5th of June, 1997.
(3) It was averred that the Syndicate and the Vice-Chancellor do not decide service appeals to give undue advantage to the persons of their choice. He quoted for instance that he filed an appeal against one Shoukat Hanif who was promoted on 15th June, 1993 but that appeal is still pending.
4. ' The respondent pleaded in the writ petition that no adequate remedy was available to the respondent. In light of these averments the respondent made the following prayers:-- "It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that an appropriate writ may kindly be issued that:-
(1) declaring that order of the promotion of respondent No.2 on 18-1-1997, is without lawful authority and jurisdiction.
(2) That it may kindly be also declared that respondent No.1 is duty bound to place the case of the petitioner before the concerned authority and is not allowed under law to keep the matter of petitioner pending for unknown time."
5. ' The writ petition was admitted to regular hearing. The admission order has been challenged before this Court. The contention of the appellant, who is a respondent in the writ petition, is that the writ petition filed in the High Court is not maintainable in view of section 38 of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act which provides that in service matters appeal can be filed before the Syndicate. It is the contention of the appellant that the appeal filed by writ petitioner Naeem Ahmad Khan is still pending with the Syndicate and a writ petition is premature. It was also submitted that a direction that the Syndicate should decide the appeal filed by the writ petition cannot be issued because Syndicate has not been impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition.
6. ' The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, relied on unreported judgment of this Court reported in 1999 PLC (C.S.) 239 titled Muzaffar Hussain v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir University and others (decided on 15-12-1993) and another judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.28 of 1997 titled Sardar Khizar Hayat Khan v. Vice-Chancellor and others (decided on 22-1-1998) in which the dictum laid down in Muzaffar Hussain's case has been followed. In Muzaffar Hussain's case a writ petition filed to challenge an order of punishment was dismissed on the ground that adequate remedy provided for by section 38 of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act was available to the writ petitioner. The appeal filed in this Court was dismissed and the view taken by he High Court was upheld. It was vehemently contended by Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal that in presence of the two judgments of this Court the High Court was left with no legal authority to admit the writ petition filed by the respondents. This argument was countered by the learned counsel for the respondents, Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, by submitting that the present case was distinguishable from the precedent cases because in the present case before approaching the High Court the respondent duly filed appeal before the Syndicate and waited for more than three months and then filed a writ petition because, as stated, there was no hope of a decision on the appeal in light of the past practice of the University. This was a distinguishing feature from the precedent cases in which no appeal had been filed with the Syndicate. It was contended by Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan that respondent performed the act of filing appeal which was in his power but if the University Authorities do no decide appeals, as is proved from the instances mentioned by the respondent in his writ petition, exercise of the Constitutional power of the High Court cannot be postponed indefinitely. After giving our anxious consideration to the matter we are of the view that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be straightaway rejected at the present stage. The respondent has filed appeal before the Syndicate but it has not been decided by it although sixteen months have elapsed. This is a distinguishing feature from the previous judgments. If it is also true, as has been alleged in the writ petition, that appeals respectively filed on 15th June, 1993 and 18th February, 1997 are still undecided in July, 1998, the question would arise whether the High Court is still debarred from deciding the matter in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Such facts did not exist in the two previous cases nor was the state of things prevailing in the University brought to our notice. This factor is new and has yet to be seen by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the admission order suffers from no illegality warranting interference of this Court at the preliminary stage.
7. ' In his writ petition the respondent also prayed that the Vice-Chancellor may be asked to place the appeal filed by the respondent before the Syndicate. This appears to be an alternative prayer. This prayer has been objected to by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that the appeal is pending with the Syndicate which is not included in the line of respondents. This objection is met by the learned counsel for the respondent by submitting that the respondent has not prayed for a direction to the Syndicate. He has rather sought a direction to the Vice-Chancellor to place the matter before the Syndicate. There is nothing illegal, or even unusual, if the High Court considers the validity of this contention before we can apply our mind to it.
8. ' The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. However, no order as to costs.