As per facts leading to this service appeal, the appellant joined as police constable in 1972. Further promotion of the appellant was subject to being admitted to list B/1 and passing of the lower school examination. This examination, for one reason or the other, did not take place and resultantly the appellant crossed the upper age limit prescribed for appearing in that examination/course. Appellant feeling aggrieved filed Appeal No, 576/782 of 1983 in this Tribunal vide which case was remanded to the IGP for reconsideration through orders dated 5.6.1984.
However, as the authority again did not depute the appellant to the requisite training course, the appellant filed Service Appeal No, 885/1216/84 which was accepted through judgment dated 22.5.1985 with the direction to relax the upper age limit in favour of the appellant so that he could get further promotion and regain his basic seniority. Appellant was consequently allowed to appear in the examination and was admitted to list B/1 in 1985. The appellant, after having passed the lower school course, made representation for being deputed to Intermediate Class Course through relaxation of upper age limit because by that time the appellant had also crossed the age limit for the next examination which was pre-condition for next promotion as ASI. As the appellant was not deputed for this course, for no fault of him, he filed Service Appeal No, 342/91 which was accepted by this Tribunal through judgment dated 12.7.1993. Consequently, in relaxation of upper age limit, the appellant was deputed for Intermediate Class Course which he qualified in 1995.
While the appellant was in correspondence with the authority for being deputed to the Intermediate Class Course, he was promoted as ASI on adhoc basis according to his seniority and length of the service on 22.7.1989. However, since the appellant had not yet qualified the Intermediate Class Court, his promotion as such was not regularized from that date and he was confirmed as ASI on 4.9.1998 after being admitted to promotion list D in 1995. Feeling aggrieved and after having exhausted departmental remedy for promotion as ASI from the date it was due i,e, the date when he was promoted as such on adhoc basis, the appellant filed Service Appeal No, 2553/2002. This appeal was disposed of through orders dated 29.12.2003 of this Tribunal by remanding the case to the concerned authority. However, the case of the appellant for ante-dated promotion as ASI was finally rejected by the concerned authority through orders dated 24.5.2004 -- hence presence appeal in this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has addressed his arguments at length. It is stated that this Tribunal has consistently held that there being no concept of adhoc promotion under the Police Rules, the adhoc promotion of the appellant as ASI w,e,f, 22.7.1989 had to be considered either as regular promotion or atleast as officiating promotion. It. is stated that many judgments of this Tribunal in that connection have been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is further stated that the appellant was eligible for appearing in the lower school course and also in the Intermediate Class Course, but as the examination was not held for many years the appellant crossed the upper age limit and he had to recourse to the Tribunal repeatedly and thereafter he was not allowed to participate in those courses. The orders of this Tribunal were fully implemented and the appellant qualified the courses for promotion. It is maintained that when the appellant was allowed to appear in the examinations and he passed those examinations, then he could not be considered junior to those who incidentally happened to pass the examination within age limit at particular point of time. It is stated that accordance with many judgments of this Tribunal seniority had to be determined on the basis of length of service and not in accordance with the date of passing of any examination/course. It is also pointed out that Police Rule 13.18 also made the appellant eligible for confirmation from the date of officiating/adhoc promotion as ASI and since the appellant was promoted as ASI w,e,f, 1989, his seniority as ASI irrespective of date of passing the Intermediate Class Course, shall have to be considered from the said date (w,e,f, 1989).
3. Appeal has been resisted by the respondents. It is maintained on behalf -of the respondents that no doubt, the appellant had sufficiently long service to his credit, but he 'qualified the examination for promotion list B/1, lower school course and Intermediate Class Course very late. It is maintained that seniority has to be determined in accordance with the date of admission to a promotion list and since the appellant had been admitted to relevant promotion lists late, he could not be allowed seniority as such from the date he was promoted on adhoc basis as ASI. It is also pointed out that promotion of the appellant as ASI was regularized in 1998. It is next stated by the official respondents that whatever promotion was due to the appellant, had been allowed to him, but as the appellant has now demanded what was not due to him, his representation was finally rejected by the concerned authority.
4. Notices were sent to the private respondents repeatedly to submit their objections if any, against the contents of appeal. Finally, some notices were also published in the press to furnish reply, but none of them have submitted reply, therefore, they are proceeded ex-parte.
5. I have considered contentions from both sides and also perused the relevant record. I find that in the first place, the appeal appears to deserve acceptance on the sole ground that none of the private respondents who were likely to be affected by the outcome of the appeal, have filed any objections. As regards merit of the case "find force in the contentions of the appellant that there being no concept of adhoc promotion in Police Rules and in consonance with many judgments of this Tribunal, the adhoc promotion of the appellant as ASI had to be considered as officiating promotion. As per Police Rules, a police official is to be confirmed from the date of officiating promotion on successful completion of probation. There is shown nothing as adverse by the official respondents in the service record of the appellant, as to make him dis-entitled to confirmation from the date he was originally promoted as ASI i,e, w,e,f, 22.7.1989. Main objection of the official respondents is that the appellant had been admitted to relevant promotion lists, very late and, therefore, as per Police Rules he could not be allowed seniority from the dates earlier than the dates of admission to those lists. I find that late admission of the appellant to relevant promotion lists, took place because the appellant was prevented from appearing in the required examination i,e, lower school course and Intermediate Class Course. Appellant had to seek relief from this Tribunal and he accordingly filed Appeal No, 885/1216/84 and also Appeal No, 342/91. These appeals were accepted through judgments dated 22.5.1985 and 12.7.1993 of this Tribunal and in pursuance of those judgments, the appellant was allowed to appear in the lower school course and Intermediate Class Course, by way of relaxation of age limit for the course. When the appellant stood admitted to the relevant courses and he also passed the same, then any delay in passing those examinations, could not be allowed to infringe upon the original seniority of the appellant.
Appellant had to be admitted to the requisite promotion list, from the dates he was due to be admitted. I also agree with learned counsel for the appellant that in any many judgments, this Tribunal has held that seniority has to be determined on the basis of length of service not from the date of passing of the examination. The passing of examination only makes a civil servant eligible for promotion. If more than one person have passed required examination on different dates and are considered ultimately eligible for promotion, they will have to be allowed seniority in accordance with their length of service or order of merit if they were recruited directly. Appellant was promoted as ASI w,e,f, 22.7.1989. His adhoc promotion as such is considered as officiating promotion. Private respondents, despite repeated notices, have filed no objections against the claim of the appellant for seniority as ASI w,e,f, the same date.
6. In view of the facts of the case and for the detailed reasons given above, appeal is accepted and the appellant is declared entitled to seniority as ASI w,e,f, 22.7.1989. He will also be considered for further attendant service benefits, in accordance with law.