' MUHAMMAD AFZAL (MEMBER-I).--- As per facts, out of which present appeal emanates, appellant joined service as police constable on 17-5-1984 and qualified courses prescribed for list A&B/I. He qualified lower class course in January, 1992 and was consequently admitted into list C/I w,e,f, 1-2- 1992. He was accordingly promoted as head constable in the year 2002. Appellant states that he is about 45 years of age with clean service record and should have been selected for Intermediate Class Course by D.P.O. Sargodha in June, 2003 as he was about to cross the age limit for the said training course. Appellant submitted application for being deputed to this course, which is prerequisite for further promotion. His application was duly recommended to D.I.-G. For Intermediate Class Course. The D.I.-G. Further recommended the case of the appellant to I.-G.P.
Through his letter dated 10-10-2003, particularly remarking that the appellant was likely to become overage on 31-12-2003, if he was not sent for this training course. The I.-G.P. Through letter, dated 31-10-2003 forwarded the case of the appellant to Commandant Police College, Sihala, for allocating a seat in the course commencing from 16-11-2003 in favour of the appellant. The Commandant intimated that all in service courses had been suspended for a year and, therefore, request of the appellant should be decided for this course in the year 2004. The Commandant also referred to general relaxation of age in this situation upto one year allowed by I.-G.P. Appellant, therefore, made another representation for being deputed in the Intermediate Class Course starting in the beginning of the year 2004, but the same was filed by respondent No,2 through his letter, dated 13-12-2003 hence the present appeal in this Tribunal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that the appellant had 20 years of clean service to his record and he natural aspired to advance in service career and if he was not allowed to participate in the Intermediate Class Course, he will suffer an irreparable loss. It is further stated that no doubt, the appellant had reached the age of 45 years, but there were precedents where, in the light of service record of police officials and other factors including seniority, age relaxation was allowed in the past and opportunity for the said training was provided. Learned counsel also maintains that in accordance with the instructions issued by the police department juniors could not have been preferred to their seniors, unless the seniors had opted not to participate in training courses and that head constable, Ahmad Khan No,95, head constable Manzoor Ahmad No,571, head constable Muhammad Amir No,1720, head constable Muhammad Yaqoob No,188 and head constable Muhammad Anwar No,887, who were junior to the appellant in the range had been deputed for the said training earlier at the time when the appellant was within age limit and in this way the appellant was deprived of chance of this training for no fault to him. It is also pointed out that the case of the appellant was earlier recommended by D.I.-G. And also by I.-G.P. Keeping in view the element of hardship and, therefore, the said authority could not take a different turn at the cost of service interests of the appellant. It is next pointed out that the appellant enjoys very good health and his good service record speaks volumes in his favour. It is also argued that Intermediate Class Course was gain starting from 1st July, 2004 and the appellant who had although crossed the age of 45 years, but not yet attained the age of 46 could have been deputed for the said training course, particularly in the light of principle of law settled in Asghar Ali v. I.-G.P. And 2 others 1986 PLC (C.S.) 677.
3. Appeal is opposed by the respondents mainly on the ground that there were some head constables, who were still senior to the appellant and who had not yet received Intermediate Class Course and also because the appellant had now become overage. It is also maintained by the respondents that the appellant had no vested right for being sent on Intermediate Class Course on priority basis. It is further stated that the appellant will be selected for Intermediate Class Course in accordance with rules.
4. I have heard arguments from both sides and also gone through the relevant record including instructions on the subject and also the case-law cited by learned counsel for the appellant and also the material relating to the training of some head constables, who were junior to the appellant.
5. I find that the appellant crossed the age of 45 years only six months back in January, 2004 and before this he could have been deputed for Intermediate Class Course and his case was recommended by the D.I.-G. And also by I.-G.P. To the Commandant Police College, Sihala. The appellant could not participate in that course mainly because in-service courses had been suspended for one year at Sihala College. The respondents are, therefore, contradicting their own earlier recommendations in favour of the appellant while submitting written objections to this appeal. I further find that some head constables, (whose names are mentioned by the learned counsel for the appellant while arguing this case), were deputed for Intermediate Class Course although they were junior to the appellant. The respondents are now raising question of age of the appellant, but no explanation is furnished by the respondents for sending junior head constables to this training course at the time when the appellant was apparently within the age limit and could have been sent for this training. If the appellant lost chance of this training in the year 2003, it was not because of any fault on his part. Appellant had made repeated requests for being sent to training course. He had also brought to the notice of departmental authorities that he was becoming overage and may get deprived of the chance. I also find that question of age for training in identical circumstances had been settled in 1986 PLC (C.S.) 677, in which direction was given to the I.-G.P. To reconsider the case for age relaxation in view of the precedents, I, therefore, find that discrimination is being made in the case of the appellant as he has been deprived of chance to undertake Intermediate Class Course while he was within the age limit, whereas some head constables junior to him were deputed for this training earlier and those juniors could not have been allowed to steal a march over the appellant because of impediment of age. The respondents have pointed out in their comments that some head constables, who were yet senior to the appellant, but within age limit were yet to be deputed for this training course and that the appellant could not be preferred over them. I find that the appellant has not claimed seniority over his senior through this appeal. The appellant has agitated only for being deputed to a training course without prejudice to the seniority of those who were otherwise senior to him. I also find that there are precedents, as highlighted in 1986 PLC (C.S.) 677, where age relaxation was allowed by the I.-G.P. At his discretion. This relaxation could also be allowed in the case of the appellant as he had just crossed the age of 45 years and he was also not claiming any seniority.
6. For the reasons given above, appeal is disposed of with the direction that the appellant shall be deputed for the next available Intermediate Class Course as some juniors were earlier deputed for this training course without considering the appellant. It is also ordered that if there were any senior head constables who had not yet received this training, but were within the age limit, the appellant shall not be considered senior to them because of having the Intermediate Class Course.