Law:

Section:

BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the actions/orders of the Public Service Commission and also seeking consequential notification in the Government order by which the appointments were made by accepting the recommendations made by the Public Service Commission, but the High Court has dismissed the writ petition in limine on the short ground that the dispute raised in the writ petition related to terms and conditions of service of the writ petitioner over which the High Court had no jurisdiction in presence of a Service Tribunal. This appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment of the High Court.   The brief and relevant facts may be thus stated. In October, 1996 the Public Service Commission invited applications for the post of Social Welfare Officers/Assistant Directors (B-17). After holding test and interview and completing other formalities the Public Service Commission issued a handout notifying the names of five successful candidates belonging to Muzaffarabad who were to be appointed against the post reserved for that District: The name of the appellant was shown at No.3 in order of merit, The handout was issued on 3rd December, 1997. Subsequently the merit list was modified and the name of the appellant was brought down from 3rd place to the 5 th place. The recommendations of the Government were made in light of the modified merit list. The appellant filed an application, which is called by him as a review petition, but it was rejected by the Public Service Commission. The Government accepted the recommendations of the Public Service Commission and issued a notification on 3rd June, 1998 in which all the five persons belonging to Muzaffarabad who were included in the merit list, were appointed as Assistant Directors/Social Welfare Officers: In the notification the name of the appellant appears at serial No.5 which is the bottom of the list.   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our view the High court fell in error in holding that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable before the High court. Under section 4 of the Service servant against a…