' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J---This appeal with the leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal passed on 21-5-2001, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for the decision of this appeal briefly stated are that the promotion orders of private respondents from the posts of Patwaris to the posts of Girdawars were assailed through three independent Appeals No,313, 314 and 315 respectively by Syed Alamdar Hussain, Khalil Ahmed Aqeel who is appellant herein and Muzaffar lqbal Khan before the Service Tribunal on 21-5-2001. All the three appeals were dismissed by the Service Tribunal on the ground that the appellants therein did not implead the Selection Committee in the line of respondents whereas they have challenged the constitution and recommendations of the said Selection Committee in their appeals, therefore their appeals were held liable to be dismissed for nonimpleadment of necessary party. This judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 21-5-2001 has been assailed only by the present appellant before us with the leave of the Court.
3. The case of the appellant before the Service Tribunal was that in the seniority list he was placed at serial No,2 as compared to private respondent No,4 who was shown at serial No,4. Under the Patwaris and Qanungo Rules, 1991, the promotion from Patwari to Girdawar was to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. He having better educational qualification even otherwise was entitled to preference over the said respondent but the Selection Committee which was illegally constituted, recommended the case of private respondent for promotion against the vacant post of Girdawar. On the basis of the illegal recommendations sent by the illegally constituted Selection Committee private respondent has been promoted to the vacant post of Girdawar. He therefore prayed that the mode by illegally constituted Selection Committee and its recommendations be set aside and he be promoted against the post of Girdawar instead of private respondent.
4. In the written statement private respondent No,4 besides other objections raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the appellant has challenged the recommendations of the Selection Committee but did not implead the said Committee in the .Line of answering respondents therefore his appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-impleadment of necessary party. The learned Service Tribunal without entering into the merits of the case held the appeal of the appellant incompetent for nonimpleadment of Selection Committee by declaring the said Committee as necessary party vide order under challenge dated 21-5-2001.
5. Syed Nazir Hussain Shah Kazmi, the learned counsel for the appellant, argued that his client was senior to private respondent No,4 in the light of the undisputed seniority list which was prepared by the department. Even otherwise his client was better qualified than him therefore there was no justification for the Selection Committee to give respondent No,4 preference over him while making recommendations for the purpose of promotion. According to him the Service Tribunal has committed an error in law in dismissing his appeal on the ground that he has not impleaded the Selection Committee in the line of answering respondenmt. According to him under rule 8 of the AJ&K Service Tribunal Procedural Rules, 1976 a civil servant is required to implead as the first respondent the authority whose order is impugned before the competent authority. In the present case Member Board of Revenue had issued the order of promotion of private respondent who was duly impleaded as first respondent in the memo. Of appeal by the appellant as was the requirement of above referred procedural rule. The recommendations of the Selection Committee had merged in the order of competent authority therefore there was no need to implead the Selection Committee as answering respondent. He further argued that the recommendations made by the Selection Committee were not final in nature; they became final when the competent authority approved them. In the presence of the authority as respondent, there was no need to implead the Selection Committee in the line of respondents. He also referred section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1975 and contended that the appeal filed by his client was maintainable before the Tribunal as under this provision of law only final order of departmental authority is required to be challenged before the Service Tribunal which was duly done by his client. He in support of his contentions besides the above referred two provisions of law relied on a case titled Muhammad Ibrahim v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others (2000 YLR 2367) wherein an objection was raised to the effect that the writ petition before the High Court was not maintainable as only the Custodian was arrayed in the line of respondents without impleading the other Rehabilitation Authorities who had also recorded orders against the petitioner. The objection was turned down by the High Court as well as by this Court on the ground that under the provisions of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 the Custodian has got vast powers to take notice even suo motu of any order passed in respect of evacuee property. Therefore he had the jurisdiction to examine the legality of any allotment. His order, being final, therefore was rightly assailed in the High Court in a writ petition and further that there was no need to implead the other Rehabilitation Authorities as respondents.
6. On the other hand Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, and Syed . Arshad Gilani, the learned counsel for the respondents, argued that the appellant has challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee and the recommendations made by it and has actually sought relief against the Selection Committee that it be declared illegal and its recommendations be quashed by holding them illegal and unlawful. In the light of the memo. Of appeal of the appellant the grievance of the appellant was mainly against the constitution and conduct of the Selection Committee therefore it was a necessary party. The Tribunal in the light of the memo. Of appeal was justified to pass dismissal order of appeal on this ground. The learned counsel relied on reported cases titled Raja Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kayani v. Azad Government and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 110 and Qazi Liaqat Ali Qureshi v. Hafiz Muhammad Ishaque and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 153.
' In Raja Muhammad Ashraf Khan Kayani v. Azad Government and others (1998 PLC (C.S.) 110) the dispute between the District and Session Judges of Azad Kashmir was in respect of the their seniority in the judicial service which was resolved in favor of certain judicial officers by the High Court. The High Court in the light of provisions contained in K.S.R. Determined the dispute relating to seniority of judicial officers and sent its recommendations to the Government. The same recommendations were approved by the Government. The aggrieved judicial officer filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The same was dismissed besides the other grounds on the ground that he has not impleaded the learned Judges of the High Court in the line of the respondents.
' In Qazi Liaqat Ali Qureshi v. Hafiz Muhammad Ishaque and others [1998 PLC (C.S.) 153] the appointment of Tehsil Qazis was assailed by two candidates before the High Court in a writ petition whereby one petition was admitted and the other was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 18th March 1997. The aggrieved person whose petition was admitted had challenged the recommendations made by the Selection Committee while conducting test and interview of the candidates but the said Committee was not impleaded by him in the line of answering respondents. The writ petition filed by the said candidate was accepted by the High Court but on appeal this Court set aside the same on the ground that the Selection Committee being necessary party was not impleaded as respondent, therefore, it was held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this sole ground.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. No doubt the requirement of law is that final order must be challenged before the Service Tribunal by an aggrieved civil servant and further that the competent authority whose order is assailed in appeal shall be impleaded as first respondent. We also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that in every case the Selection Committee is not a necessary party and should not in every case be impleaded as answering respondent but whenever the constitution of Selection Committee and its conduct in formulating the recommendations is challenged and a remedy is sought against its constitution and its functioning then in a case the Selection Committee becomes a necessary party and it must necessarily be impleaded as answering respondent. A judicial order determining the liabilities and rights of the parties cannot be passed at the back of a party because that will be in violation of the universally recognised principle of audi alteram partem. The principle of natural justice is presumed to be the part of every statute unless and until it is specifically excluded through a provision contained in the relevant statute. In the present case the appellant in the memo. Of his appeal before the Service Tribunal has challenged the constitution of the Selection Committee in the following words: --{{URDU TEXT}}
8. From the reading of the memo. Of appeal it becomes clear that the appellant had grievance about the constitution of the Selection Committee and the way it conducted its proceedings in formulating its recommendations for the promotion of Patwari against the vacant post of Girdawar. The Selection Committee, therefore, was a necessary party and no order could be passed against the Selection Committee without providing it a right of hearing. The Selection Committee has played important role in the present case. Its recommendations were accepted by the competent authority while passing order of promotion of respondent No,4. The procedure contained in the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in the proceedings before the Service Tribunal; therefore, without impleading the necessary party, the appeal before the Service Tribunal was not maintainable. We have also noticed that this objection was specifically raised in the written statement but no effort was made by the appellant to implead the Selection Committee in the line of answering respondents.
' In view of the above facts the Service Tribunal while relying upon the judgments of this Court has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant without entering into merits of the case.
The same judgment is therefore kept intact by dismissing the present appeal with costs.