Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Nazir Ahmad Wani vs State Of Jammu & Kashmir &Ors on 30 July, 2021
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Chief Justice, Vinod Chatterji Koul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CJ Court
Reserved on: 03.06.2021
Pronounced on: 30.07.2021
LPASW No.131/2018
Nazir Ahmad Wani ...Petitioner(s)/Appellants.
Through: Mr. B. A. Bashir, Sr. Advocate.
Vs.
State of Jammu & Kashmir &Ors. ....Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Shah Aamir, AAG, for respondent no.1.
Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. A.Hanan, Advocate,
for respondent no.2.
Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, Advocate, for respondent no.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
Pankaj Mithal, CJ
01. Under challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is the judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of writ petition SWP No.1390/2018: Nazir Ahmad Wani v. State and others.
02. Before proceeding to express any opinion on the validity of the order impugned, it would be prudent to narrate some of the facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition and the relief sought therein. LPASW No.131/2018 1
03. The dispute essentially relates to Assistant Controller Drugs/ Assistant Drug Analyst, Deputy Controller Drugs and Food/ Drug Analyst and promotion to the post of Controller Drugs and Food in the Health and Medical Education Department of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
04. In the present appeal or the writ petition wherefrom this appeal has arisen, the dispute is interse the petitioner-appellant-Nazir Ahmad Wani and respondent no.2-Mrs. Lotka Khajuria but it refers to four other persons, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Shuban Lal Koul, Satish Kumar Gupta and Mrs. Irfana Ahmad.
05. It is pertinent to mention here that all the above six persons, namely, Ashok Kumar Gupta, Shuban Lal Koul, Satish Kumar Gupta, Mrs. Irfana Ahmad, Mrs. Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani, were working in the Health and Medical Education Department, Government of Jammu & Kashmir and in the year 2000 were posted as Senior Drug Inspectors. All of them were accorded promotion as Assistant Controller Drugs vide order dated 01.01.2002 in their own pay and grade subject to clearance by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)/ Public Service Commission (PSC). These promotions were made against the 80% quota meant to be filled up by promotion from amongst the Senior Drug Inspectors; whereas the remaining 20% of the posts of the Assistant Controller Drugs were to be filled up by direct recruitment on selection and recommendation by the Commission.
LPASW No.131/2018 2
06. The State Public Service Commission, Srinagar, vide notification dated 24.10.2000 advertised one post of Assistant Drug Controller/ Assistant Drug Analyst to be filled up by open merit i.e., direct recruitment and invited applications from the eligible candidates. Two of the above persons Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani who had already been promoted as Assistant Drug Controller subject to clearance by the DPC/PSC also applied as the Rules permitted persons already in service to apply and compete for direct recruitment within the quota prescribed. The Commission on the basis of the overall performance which included the academic merit, experience, interview and other relevant factors recommended the name of Lotika Khajuria for appointment as open merit candidate. The other candidate Nazir Ahmad Wani was placed in the waiting list.
07. On the basis of the recommendation of the Commission, the Under Secretary to the Government Health and Medical Education Department vide order dated 20.03.2003 accorded sanction to the appointment of Lotika Khajuria as Assistant Drug Controller/ Assistant Drug Analyst in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 in the Drug and Food Control organization. In this way Lotika Khajuria came to be appointed by direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Drug Controller/ Assistant Drug Analyst foregoing her earlier promotion on the said post accorded vide order dated 01.01.2002 which was in her own pay and grade subject to clearance by the DPC/PSC. Since at the relevant point of time Lotika Khajuria was on deputation to the State Aids LPASW No.131/2018 3 Control Society, Chandigarh, and was allowed to continue on deputation despite her direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Drug Controller, the Government by the same order dated 20.03.2003 appointed Nazir Ahmad Wani who was in the waiting list of open merit as the Assistant Drug Controller/ Assistant Drug Analyst in the same pay scale of Rs.7500-12000.
08. The above facts clearly reflect that both Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani appeared for the direct selection on the post of Assistant Controller Drugs and that the Commission recommended the name of Lotika Khajuria only for appointment as one vacancy alone was notified and advertised. The name of Nazir Ahmad Wani was placed in the waiting list. Accordingly, Lotika Khajuria was appointed as Assistant Drug Controller but as she was on deputation Nazir Ahmad Wani was appointed to fill up the vacancy. Thus, the appointment of both of them were of the same date but with Lotika Khajuria as senior to Nazir Ahmad Wani as she alone was substantively selected and recommended for appointment whereas Nazir Ahmad Wani was kept in the waiting list. It may not be out of place to mention here that the promotion accorded to all the above six persons or to be precise to the four persons other than Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani never got the approval of the DPC or the PSC and as such, they continued to work on the promoted post but in their own pay and grade and became junior to Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani who came to be substantively appointed by direct recruitment as Assistant Controller Drugs. LPASW No.131/2018 4 Both Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani acquired the higher status than the other four.
09. In this background four writ petitions were filed before the High Court; two by Nazir Ahmad Wani and two by Irfana Ahmad being SWP Nos. 599/2004, 821/2005, 1085/2005 and 549/2006. The questions which arose for determination before the court in the above writ petitions were whether Nazir Ahmad Wani would be treated to have been appointed on a post for direct recruitment; if so what would be his place in the seniority list; and whether the promotes would be placed higher up in the seniority list than Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani as they were promoted earlier to their direct appointment. The Court vide its judgment and order dated 02.06.2006 decided all the writ petitions holding that as actually two posts of Assistant Drug Controller were available in the Department for direct recruitment but only one was advertised so on the second post other than the one held by Lotika Khajuria, Nazir Ahmad Wani would be treated to have been substantively appointed by direct recruitment. The argument that the promotes would rank senior to Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani was repelled as their promotion was held to be stop gap or temporary since the same was subject to clearance by the DPC/PSC and was not substantive in nature. The Government and the Commission were directed to consider the cases of the promotes for according necessary clearance to their substantive promotion and to make higher promotion, if any, in accordance with the revised seniority list.
LPASW No.131/2018 5
10. It so happened that Nazir Ahmad Wani was allowed to work as Deputy Controller of Drugs and was subsequently given charge of Controller of Drugs vide GO No.550-HME dated 01.10.2014. Lotika Khajuria challenged the said order dated 01.10.2014 allowing Nazir Ahmad Wani to work as Controller of Drugs by means of SWP No.2878/2014. The said writ petition was finally disposed of on 24.11.2014. Both the parties filed LPA's Nos.11/2015 and 1/2015 respectively, which were disposed of on 13.05.2015. The review preferred by Nazir Ahmad Wani against the judgment and order dated 13.05.2015 was decided on 16.05.2015.
11. The Government vide order dated 22.12.2015 bearing No.817-HME of 2015 gave temporary charge of the post of Controller Drugs to Lotika Khajuria. Nazir Ahmad Wani in protest proceeded on six months leave. He was sent on deputation vide order dated 15.07.2016 to the Jammu & Kashmir Medical Supplies Corporation Limited. However, vide order dated 22.03.2018 he was recalled from deputation and was directed to be given temporary charge of Controller of Drugs in place of Lotika Khajuria. This order was challenged by Lotika Khajuria by means of SWP No.580/2018 and the High Court vide order dated 22.03.2018 restrained both of them from holding the post of Controller of Drugs. Finally Government revoked its order dated 22.03.2018 and the charge of Controller of Drugs was given to Lotika Khajuria by means of order dated 18.06.2018 (which is said to have been passed actually on 19.06.2018). It is this order which was LPASW No.131/2018 6 challenged by Nazir Ahmad Wani by means of writ petition (SWP) No. 1390/2018 giving rise to the present appeal.
12. The facts as narrated above would reveal that the challenge in SWP No.1390/2018 filed by Nazir Ahmad Wani was only to the order dated 18.06.2018 (19.06.2018) by which the earlier order dated 22.03.2018 appointing him temporarily on the post of Controller of Drugs has been revoked.
13. Suffice it to say that Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani are both substantively working on the post of Assistant Controller Drugs/ Assistant Drug Analyst. They have never been promoted substantively either on the post of Deputy Controller Drugs and Food or Controller Drugs and Food by following the procedure prescribed under the rules. At one point of time Nazir Ahmad Wani was given additional charge of Controller of Drugs in the year 2014 and later in December, 2015 Lotika Khajuria was given the temporary charge of the said post. Thereafter, again vide order dated 22.03.2018 Nazir Ahmad Wani was allowed to function on temporary basis on the post of Controller of Drugs which order has subsequently been revoked vide order dated 18.06.2018 (19.06.2018). In short, the dispute is who out of the two who is entitled to function either temporarily or substantively on the post of Controller Drugs.
14. We heard Mr. B. A. Bashir, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Nazir Ahmad Wani, Mr. Z. A. Shah on behalf of Mrs. Lotika LPASW No.131/2018 7 Khajuria, Mr. M. Amin on behalf of State Public Service Commission and Mr. Shah Aamir on behalf of Union Territory of J&K.
15. Mr. Bashir argued that once a conscious decision was taken by the respondent authorities to promote and appoint Nazir Ahmad Wani on the post of Controller of Drugs, the same was not liable to be rescinded and that too without any notice or opportunity of hearing to him. Secondly, the order dated 18.06.2018 (19.06.2018) rescinding the order dated 22.03.2018 by which Nazir Ahmad Wani was appointed on the aforesaid post has been backdated. In fact it is an order passed on 19.06.2018 on which date the authority passing the same had lost jurisdiction to pass it. Nazir Ahmad Wani had actually worked till 19.06.2018 and, therefore, it is incorrect to state that his order of appointment as Controller of Drugs was rescinded on 18.06.2018.
16. Mr. Shah, on the other hand, submits that the promotion/ appointment of the Nazir Ahmad Wani on the post of Controller of Drugs was temporary in nature which gave no right to him to hold the said post and, if the same has been rescinded, none of his legal rights gets infringed. The rescinding of the aforesaid order cast no stigma upon his service. The order appointing Nazir Ahmad Wani as Controller of Drugs was rightly rescinded as it was within the teeth of the earlier judgment of the Court dated 13.05.2015 by which LPA No.11/2015 and 1/2015, filed by both the parties, were decided with the categorical direction that as a stop gap LPASW No.131/2018 8 arrangement the charge of Controller of Drugs shall be given to the senior most Deputy Drug Controller.
17. Mr. Amin on behalf of the State Public Service commission submits that seniority of the officers working on the above post is not within the sole domain of the Commission. It is to be determined by the DPC of which the Chairman of the State Public Service Commission is the head. The Government had released the seniority list in 2014 but the same was quashed.
18. Mr. Shah Aamir, learned counsel for the Union Territory had nothing much to add except to adopt the argument of Mr. Shah and to state that one of the candidates Mrs. Irfana had nothing to do with the present appeal.
19. In rejoinder, Mr. Bashir submitted that Mrs. Lotika Khajuria cannot be appointed/ promoted on the post of Controller of Drugs as she is not eligible and qualified to hold the said post which is a selection post. The circular on the basis of which the impugned judgment has been pronounced was not applicable and, therefore, the above judgment is no judgment in the eyes of law.
20. In addressing the respective contentions raised by the parties, it is appropriate to mention that services on the post of Assistant Controller Drugs/ Assistant Drug Analyst, Dy. Controller Drugs and Food/ Drug Analyst and that of Controller Drugs and Food of the Health and Medical Education Department of the Union Territory are governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Drugs and Food Control (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, LPASW No.131/2018 9 1997, framed vide SRO No.56 of 1997 issued on 3 rd February, 1997. The said Rules inter alia provide for the strength and composition of the service which means the Jammu & Kashmir Drugs and Food Control (Gazetted) Services and that its composition be such as is specified in Schedule-I to the Rules. The said Schedule-I to the Rules provide for the following posts which are relevant for our purpose:
(i) Assistant Controller Drugs 4 posts
(ii) Drugs Analyst
(iii) Dy. Controller Drugs & Food 3 posts
(iv) Controller Drugs & Food 1 post
21. In view of the above composition of the service and sanctioned strength of the posts therein, it is evident that there is only one post of the Controller Drugs and Food in the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
22. Rule 5 of the Rules provide for the qualifications to fill up the various posts in the service. It inter alia provides that no person shall be eligible for appointment or promotion on any post, class or category in the service unless he or she possesses the qualifications as laid down in the Schedule-II and fulfills other requirements of recruitment as provided in the rules and orders for the time being in force.
23. Schedule-II provides that the posts of Assistant Controller Drugs/ Assistant Drugs Analyst shall be filled up 20% by direct recruitment and 80% by promotion from amongst the senior most Scientific Officers and Senior Drug Inspector, Instrument Technicians of Drugs and Food LPASW No.131/2018 10 (Subordinate) Service subject to fulfillment of some other conditions. The post of Dy. Controller Drugs and Food/ Drug Analyst are required to be filled up 75% by promotion from Class III category (a) i.e., Assistant Controller Drugs/ Assistant Drug Analyst with at least five years experience as such. The remaining 25% are to be filled up by promotion from Class III category (c) i.e., Assistant Controller PFA with at least five years experience as such and possessing the qualification as prescribed in respect of Assistant Controller Drugs and Food.
24. The crucial qualification and eligibility condition with which we are concerned are in respect of the post of Controller of Drugs and Food. The said Schedule-II provides for 100% promotion on the said post by selection from Class II i.e., Deputy Controller Drugs and Food/ Drugs Analyst with a minimum seven years of service as such. In other words only a person having seven years of service experience on the post of Deputy Controller Drugs and Food/ Drug Analyst alone is competent to be appointed as Controller of Drugs by means of promotion/ selection. It is to be remembered that under Schedule-I of the Rules since there is only one post of Controller of Drugs, it is to be filled up by promotion of Deputy Controller Drugs and Food having seven years of service experience on the said post.
25. Admittedly, in the case at hand, Mrs. Lotika Khajuria and Mr. Nazir Ahmad Wani were both directly appointed on 20.03.2003 within 20% quota for direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Controller Drugs/ Assistant LPASW No.131/2018 11 Drugs Analyst. There is no material on record to establish that they were ever substantively promoted on the post of Deputy Controller Drugs and Food in accordance with Rule 5 read with Schdule-II of the Rules. They were simply allowed to function as Deputy Controller Drugs and Food by virtue of their seniority or long spell of work as Assistant Drug Controller.
26. When Nazir Ahmad Wani was allowed to function as Deputy Controller of Drugs and was subsequently permitted to take charge as Controller of Drugs vide order dated 01.10.2014, Mrs. Lotika Khajuria challenged it by filing SWP No.2878/2014 and obtained an interim order on 14.10.2014. The said writ petition was finally decided on 24.11.2014 holding that both Lotika Khajuria and Nazir Ahmad Wani are ineligible to hold the post of Controller of Drugs either on substantive basis or on temporary basis. This judgment gave rise to two appeals being LPA Nos.11/2015 and 01/2015 filed by either of the parties which were decided vide judgment and order dated 13.05.2015 but the above finding was not disturbed. The aforesaid judgment and order is final and conclusive and is very important for the present dispute.
27. The Division Bench in deciding the said appeals directed the State Public Service Commission to accord consideration to the proposal for filling up the post of Deputy Controller Drugs and Food on substantive basis; once the posts of Deputy Controller are filled up on regular basis to accord consideration to the eligible Deputy Controller Drugs and Food for filling up the post of Controller Drugs; to accord consideration to all LPASW No.131/2018 12 Incharge Deputy Controllers Drugs in accordance with the rules for placement of one of them as Incharge of the post of Controller Drugs; and in the intervening period i.e., the date posts of Dy. Drug Controller are filled up on substantive basis and the date the post of Controller of Drugs is so filled up, the charge of Controller of Drugs shall be given to senior most Dy. Drug Controller but this arrangement shall not continue beyond a period of eight weeks.
28. In the absence of any material on record to establish that substantive appointments were ever made on the post of Deputy Controller Drugs under the Rules, none is eligible and qualified for promotion on the solitary post of Controller of Drugs as has been conclusively held in the previous round of litigation. Since the said post is to be filled up by promotion only from amongst the Deputy Controller Drugs irrespective of the fact that it may be a selection post and not strictly dependent upon seniority nonetheless in the peculiar facts and circumstances and as directed by the previous judgment and order dated 13.05.2015 passed in LPA Nos. 11/2015 and 01/2015 it is but necessary to mitigate the hardship, to allow the said post to be held up as a stop gap arrangement from the senior most Deputy Controller Drugs or Asstt. Controller of Drugs till substantive appointment by promotion is made on the said post.
29. Now coming to the respective arguments of the parties.
30. Let us first examine whether the decision taken by the respondents to promote Nazir Ahmad Wani on temporary basis as Controller of Drugs LPASW No.131/2018 13 could have been validly rescinded. In this connection it may be noted that Nazir Ahmad Wani cannot be recognized as the senior most person in the department as Mrs. Lotika Khajuria is exfacie senior to him. Both of them were appointed on the same day as Assistant Controller Drugs by direct recruitment and the name of Mrs. Lotika Khajuria appeared as the only name after selection in merit list for appointment whereas Nazir Ahmad Wani was in the waiting list. Therefore, even if both of them were selected simultaneously and have joined on the same day, Mrs. Lotika Khajuria would be treated above Nazir Ahmad Wani. Secondly, Nazir Ahmad Wani is not eligible for appointment on the post of Controller as he had not worked as Deputy Controller of Drugs in substantive capacity for seven years. He was never promoted permanently to hold the post of Dy. Controller of Drugs. Under Rule 5 read with Schedule II, the post of Controller of Drugs is required to be filled up by promotion through selection from Deputy Controller Drugs and Food having a minimum of seven years of service as such. Nazir Ahmad Wani is not having seven years of service as Deputy Controller Drugs and Food in substantive capacity and as such, is not eligible. This apart, Nazir Ahmad Wani, was simply allowed to function as Controller of Drugs without facing any selection or promotional procedure as a stop gap arrangement. In this way, no rights accrued to him to continue on the said post. Therefore, if the order allowing him to function as Controller of Drugs has been rescinded, it has not infringed upon any of his substantive rights which may entail any LPASW No.131/2018 14 interference in the matter. Moreover, where a power is conferred upon the authorities to do an act, they have inherent power to undo the same if the power is subsequently found to have been exercised in a palpably wrong manner. Nazir Ahmad Wani was allowed to function as Controller of Drugs in complete violation of the Rules and seniority and, as such, no illegality had been committed in rescinding the order dated 22.03.2018 by which he was allowed to function as Controller of Drugs. The order impugned in the writ petition i.e., the order of revocation in no way cast any stigma upon the service of Nazir Ahmad Wani, and therefore, he cannot be recognized as a person who may be prejudiced by said order in any manner.
31. It has to be remembered that promotion is an incident of service but no one can claim it as a matter of right. It is only the qualified and eligible person who has a right to be considered for promotion. It is trite to clarify that eligibility for the post may at time is misconstrued to mean qualification. The State of Gujarat & Others v. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & another : AIR 2012 SC 3281 clarifies that eligibility connotes the minimum criteria for selection, that may be laid down by the executive/ legislature by way of any Statute or Rules, while the term qualification, may connote any additional norms laid down by the authorities. Therefore, vide Dr. Preeti Srivastava & Anr. v. State of M.P. & Ors. : AIR 1999 SC 2894, before a person is considered for a post he must fulfill the eligibility criteria and possess the minimum qualification.
LPASW No.131/2018 15
32. In State of M.P. & another v. Dharam Bir : (1998) 6 SCC 165, it was held that the courts and tribunals do not have the power to issue direction to make appointment by way of granting relaxation of eligibility or in contravention of eligibility conditions and qualifications required for the post as it would amount to altering or amending the statutory provisions. Fixing of eligibility criteria for a particular post falls within the executive domain of the executive/ legislature and cannot be the subject matter of judicial review unless found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory in nature.
33. In State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamta Mohanty : (2011) 3 SCC 436, the Court held that any appointment made in contravention of the statutory requirement i.e. eligibility condition cannot be approved, preserved or protected even if a person has been employed for a long time.
34. A person who does not possess the requisite qualifications or who is not eligible cannot even apply for recruitment. Lacking eligibility for the post cannot be cured at any stage and appointing such a person would amount to serious illegality and such a person cannot even approach the court for any relief as he does not have the right to hold the post vide Prit Singh v. S. K. Mangal & Ors. : 1993(1) SCC (Supp) 714.
35. In Pramod Kumar v. U. P. Secondary Education Services Commission & Ors. : AIR 2008 SC 1817, the Court observed that if the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post is not satisfied, the same cannot be condoned ordinarily. An appointment which is contrary LPASW No.131/2018 16 to the Statute would be void in law. Such a person would have no legal right to continue on the post. In such circumstances where a person is not eligible termination or revocation of his appointment would not be illegal.
36. In the above legal scenario, as Nazir Ahmad Wani or as a matter of fact Lotika Khajuria both lack the basic eligibility conditions of seven years minimum experience of the post of Dy. Controller of Drugs as prescribed by Rule 5 read with Schedule-II of Rules for promotion to the post of Controller of Drugs, they have no legal vested right to continue on the said post and as such rescinding of any order authorizing them to work on it suffers from no illegality.
37. The argument that the order dated 18.06.2018 was actually passed on 19.06.2018 and had been backdated has no legs to stand. We examined the original record as produced and find no interpolation or anything of the kind which may give a slightest doubt in our mind that it had been backdated. The submission that the petitioner was working as Controller of Drugs even on 19.06.2018 as he had written several official letters on the said date does not mean that the order dated 22.03.2018 was not rescinded on 18.06.2018. It may be the other way round. The possibility that the letters written by him on 18.06.2018 or any other earlier date may have been falsely marked as written on 19.06.2018 cannot be ruled out completely.
38. We agree with the submission of Mr. B. A.Bashir, that Mrs. Lotika Khajuria is also not eligible and qualified for promotion. As already LPASW No.131/2018 17 discussed, she also does not have to her credit a minimum of seven years of experience as Deputy Controller Drugs in substantive capacity.
39. Lastly, we come to the argument that the order impugned in this appeal is no judgment in the eyes of law as it is based upon a circular which is not applicable.
40. The learned Single Judge, after narrating and dealing with the issue in controversy, pointed out that the Government had issued a circular dated 20.07.2018 stating that since certain appointments have been made at the level of the department without the approval of the Cabinet or concurrence of the Finance Department, all such appointments require to be relooked. Thus, in the wake of the circular, the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition to examine the issue of appointment of Mr. Nazir Ahmad Wani on the post of Controller Drugs and the subsequent order rescinding it to find out which of the orders shall hold the field or who is the person competent to hold the post of Controller of Drugs.
41. We do not think that the said circular was not applicable and assuming that it is not applicable, the Court committed no wrong in relegating the matter to the Government to examine it afresh.
42. The appellant Nazir Ahmad Wani having no right to hold the post of the Controller of Drugs, if have been disallowed to function on it, we are of the opinion that no illegality has been committed and at the same time, there is no flaw in the impugned judgment which may permit us to intervene in the matter.
LPASW No.131/2018 18
43. The appeal, as such, lacks merit and is dismissed clarifying that none of the observations made hereinabove in this judgment would come in the way of either of the parties in getting their inter-se seniority determined in any other forum or in any litigation that may be pending between them.
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) (PANKAJ MITHAL)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Srinagar
30.07.2021
Abdul Qayoom, PS
Whether the order is speaking? Yes.
Whether the order is reportable? Yes.
LPASW No.131/2018 19
ABDUL QAYOOM LONE
2021.07.30 15:35
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document