' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, C.J.---This appeal, by way of leave of the Court, has been directed against the judgment passed by the High Court on 31-3-2003, whereby the writ petition filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein was accepted and the order regarding removal of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from service was set aside.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that respondent No,1 was serving as Estimator B-9 while respondent No,2 was appointed as Junior Clerk in the office of Development Authority Muzaffarabad. Their appointments were made subject to confirmation by the Selection Committee. Subsequently they were confirmed by the Selection Committee. The Government through a Notification, dated 23-12-2000 constituted a Committee for scrutiny of necessity of employees in the Development Authority Muzaffarabad. On the recommendations of the said Committee, respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein alongwith others were removed from service. The respondents challenged the order of their removal from service in the High Court through a writ petition which, as stated earlier, was accepted vide the impugned judgment of the High Court, dated 31-3-2003. It is the aforesaid judgment of the High Court which is the subject-matter of present appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Yaqub Khan Mughal, Advocate, and Raja Ibrar Hussain, the learned Advocate- General, appearing on behalf of the appellants, contended that the contesting respondents and many other persons were inducted in the service on various posts, therefore, a Committee was established by the Government to ascertain the legality of the recruitments made by the Chairman Development Authority Muzaffarabad. The said Committee after thorough inquiry submitted a report and in the light of that report, 121 persons were held recruited totally against law, procedure and without creation and approval of posts by the concerned Selection Committee/Selection Board. Therefore, the contesting respondents alongwith many others were removed from service.
The learned counsel pressed into service the submission that the appointments were made subject to creation and confirmation of posts by the Selection Committee/Selection Board but they were not approved by the respective Selection Committee/Selection Board. The learned counsel also submitted that the remedy of writ petition cannot be availed for the protection of ill-gotten gains. The respondents were unduly burdening the Budget and scarce sources of the Development Authority Muzaffarabad.
4. Controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, pressed into service the submission that the answering respondents were terminated. From their services by the Government through Notification, dated 21-4-2001, annexure which was set aside by the High Court vide its impugned judgment, dated 31-3-2003. The Government was moved with regard to filing of appeal before this Court by the Chairman Development Authority Muzaffarabad but the Government declined to file appeal vide Notification, dated 26-5-2003, copy of which is attached with the paper book as annexure `RIB'. In view of refusal of filing appeal by the Government, the Chairman Development Authority or the Secretary Works/Executive Secretary of Development Authority Muzaffarabad, has no locus standi to file appeal against the impugned judgment passed by High Court. The Chairman Development Authority and Secretary Works/Executive Secretary Development Authority Muzaffarabad neither passed any order with regard to removal of answering respondents nor initiated any kind of proceedings for the termination of the services of the respondents, as such they are not aggrieved and have no locus standi to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
Even otherwise it was strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that respondent No,1 was appointed against the post of Estimator B-5 on the recommendations of the concerned Selection Committee vide order, dated 29-10-1995, annexure 'WC', which post was later on upgraded by the competent authority vide order, dated 2-7-1997, annexure 'RID' and ultimately the answering respondent No,1 was confirmed against the upgraded post on the recommendations of the concerned Selection Committee vide order, dated 22-9-1997, annexure `R/E'. The services of respondent No,1 were unlawfully terminated under the political connivance by colourable exercise of jurisdiction, as such no illegality has been committed by the High Court while setting aside the termination order of respondent No, 1.
5. Similarly, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, answering respondent No,2 was appointed against the post of Junior Clerk B-5 vide order, dated 23-10-1997, annexure `R/F' and later on the matter was sent to the concerned Selection Committee and ultimately on the recommendations of the Selection Committee he was confirmed against the said post vide order, dated 27-4-2000, annexure `RIG'. He was also removed from service contrary to basic principles of locus poentientiae and audi alteram partem. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contentions placed reliance on an unreported case of this Court titled Development Authority Muzaffarabad v. Kh. Maqbool War and others (Civil P.L.A. No, 144 of 2002, decided on 14-1-2003).
6. After giving our due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the relevant record, it may be stated that the appointment of respondents Nos.1 and 2 was made subject to approval by the Selection Committee and they have been confirmed by the Selection Committee. The perusal of the Budget, A regarding the posts in question, also shows that it was duly passed by the Government. Alongwith the Budget there is a list of employee of the Department in which the names of both the contesting respondents are included. Therefore, it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that the respondents were not confirmed by the Selection Committee. The services of the respondents have been terminated by the Government through Notification, dated 21-4-2001 which was set aside by the High Court vide its impugned judgment, dated 31-3-2003. The Government was moved for granting sanction to file appeal before the Supreme Court by the Chairman Development Authority Muzaffarabad but it declined to file appeal vide Notification, dated 26-5-2003, annexure `RIB'. Since the respondents were adversely affected by issuance of Notification of Government with regard to termination of their services, therefore, after setting aside the said Notification by the High Court, the only aggrieved party which issued the Notification was the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir which declined to file appeal. As no order of termination of respondents was passed by the Chairman Development Authority or Secretary Works/Executive Secretary Development Authority Muzaffarabad, therefore, they are not aggrieved persons to file an appeal before this Court. In this view of the matter the appeal filed by the present appellants has been filed incompetently and the same entails dismissal. Our aforesaid view finds support from an unreported case of this Court titled Development Authority Muzaffarabad v. Kha. Maqbool War and others (Civil P.L.A. No,144 of 2002 decided on 14-1-2003) wherein it was observed as follows:-- "Even otherwise Government notification was set aside by the High Court, therefore, only the Government was aggrieved, as such, could have filed petition for leave to appeal before this Court against the judgment of the High Court. The Government was moved in this regard but it denied to give permission to defend its notification and avail appellate jurisdiction of this Court against the judgment of the High Court. As the interest of the Development Authority Muzaffarabad has not been adversely affected by the impugned judgment, therefore, it has got no right to file petition for leave to appeal before this Court as has been held by this Court in a case titled Raja Iqbal Rashid Minhas v. AJ&K Council and 3 others PLD 20002 SC (AJ&K) 1.
7. Another reason for dismissing the present appeal is that before the termination of services of the respondents, they were not given any opportunity of being heard, as such the principle of audi alteram partem, which is almost of universal application, has been violated. The services of the respondents had been duly confirmed by the concerned Selection Committee. The budget for their posts was also sanctioned and their names appear in the list of budget. In this view of the matter, a valuable right had accrued in favor of respondents which could not have been snatched away without providing them an opportunity of being heard.
8. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, the same stands dismissed.