HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.---This order will also dispose of W.P. No.11495 of 2007 as the common question of law is involved.
2. Facts leading to these writ petitions are that the petitioners being Graduate Police Officials claim their entitlement for the relief as per Article 7(3) of the Police Order, 2002, which is follows:--- "25% quota for departmental promotions to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector shall be filled subject to rules through the selection by the appropriate Public Service Commission from graduate constables and Head Constables of clean record."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance to the provisions of Police Order, 2002, an advertisement was published in the daily 'fang' dated 1.1.2006 by the Punjab Public Service Commission for filling up the posts of ASI (BS-9) in the Punjab Police Department on Range basis, in the same advertisement the post of ASI (BS-9) from amongst graduate serving Constables and Head Constables in the Punjab Police Department on range basis were also advertised, The petitioners being eligible applied for the same, However, due to crossing of upper age limit they were not called for the interview and they filed different writ petitions, which were heard on 23.5.2006 and it was held in W.P. No. 395 of 2006 and W.P. No. 712 of 2006 that the upper age limit for the in service candidates be as 35 years and the petitioners, who fall within this category shall be eligible for the written examination and interview before the Punjab Public Service Commission, The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge was assailed in ICA No. 194 of 2006 and ICA No. 195 of 2006 with a submissions that fixation of upper age limit as 35 years is not inconsonance to the provisions of Police Order, 2002. These ICAs were decided through judgment dated 8.11.2006 and the learned Division Bench of this Court held that "fixation of upper age limit for promotion for in service Constables and Head Constables is not in accordance with law and the appellants are held not ineligible for promotion for the post of ASI on account of their ages before the PPSC."
4. Learned counsel further submits that new inductees on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Commission as ASI in the direct quota were appointed and they ate serving at various places, whereas the petitioners, who otherwise are eligible for their appointments/promotions under 25% quota and despite clear findings in favour of the petitioners by the learned Division Bench of this Court of the year 2006, the petitioners are being deprived with no fault of them, rather on extraneous consideration. This writ petition was fixed on 3.12.2007 when a copy of this petition was delivered to the learned Law Officer with a direction to seek instruction and submit report on 7.12.2007, the case was adjourned time and again, on the request of Assistant Inspector-General of Police (Legal) that the matter is under active consideration before the Chief Minister, which is likely to be approved and C.P.L.A. Is also filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court.
5. Time and again it was insisted by the Departmental Authorities to wait the outcome of orders of the apex court, resultantly the case was adjourned on different dates. However, it was admitted for regular hearing and a last chance was afforded to the Departmental Authorities to apprise this Court with the latest position in respect of outcome of apex Court's orders.
6. Today it is informed that the leave has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan but the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court is not suspended, meaning thereby that the judgment passed by the learned Division Bench still hold the field.
7. Learned AAG submits that it shall be appropriate to wait for the final outcome of Hon'ble Supreme Court's verdicts, which shall be announced on the basis of leave granting order.
8. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are running from pillar to post for the redressal of their grievance since 2006 when a judgment was delivered by the High Court in their favour, admittedly the same was not suspended by the apex Court and as such the Departmental Authorities are under lawful obligations to implement the judgment the High Court without causing any hindrance.
9. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
10. The only stance of the department in the present controversy is that upper limit for in service Constables and Head Constable shall not be different than the direct appointees but I am of the considered view that when this contention of the Department Authorities was not accepted by a learned Division Bench of this Court, the department is left with no other option except to proceed with the petitioners' cases in line with the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court, particularly when the Division Bench's Judgment was not suspended by the apex Court.
11. It is admitted position that quota is prescribed for filling of posts of ASI of police for direct appointments as well as for in service graduate Constable and Head Constables and it is also well-settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that quota always be observed strictly and promotees are entitled to be considered against every vacancy, which occurred in their quota . Promotees shall be considered for promotion i.e.f. The dates when the posts in their quota became available. In this respect reliance can be, placed on Ch. Muhammad Siddique and 4 others v. Director, Special Education and 7 others (1997PLC.(CS) 1210) and Dr. Shaukat Tanveer Dental Surgeon District Headquarter Hospital, Bhimber v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and others (2003 PLC (CS)1436),
12. It is also resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that:- "promotion is to be made from the date of occurrence of vacancy and not from the subsequent date. Reliance is placed on Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education and another v.
Rana Ghulam Sarwar Khan and 111 others (1997 SCMR 515) and Tariq Aziz and others v. Muhammad and other (2001 PLC (CS) 1242)."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan went to the extent even that, "Promotees shall be given their quota first then the direct as held in the case of Dr. Arif Majeed v. Dr. Shuja-ud-Din Khan and 5 Others (2000 PSC(CS) 600)
14. In the present case there is no cavil from the preposition and there is no denial even today that the petitioners' quota is still unexhausted, whereas the direct appointees have already been benefited since long. This very situation is otherwise offends the law laid down by the. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as (PLD 1994 SC,233), wherein it is held that, "If a civil servant was otherwise fit for promotion then getting the case late for clearance from the Selection Board is not fair and justified."
15. Viewing the present case from all angles it is held that the alleged deficiency in respect of upper-age limit of the petitioners is resolved by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the year 2006, holding the petitioners eligible for their promotion/appointments" consideration but keeping them in vacuum for the last two years, particularly when there is no restraint order by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, is neither justified nor understandable.
16. In the attending circumstances, it is held that mere filing of petition for leave to appeal or grant of leave by the apex Court did nor operate to stay the operation of judgment of Division Bench, so the Departmental Authorities have left no other option except to comply with the directions of the learned Division Bench, implement the judgment passed by the High Court in ICA in letter and spirit.
17. This writ petition is allowed, the respondent/Inspector General of Police is directed to send the requisition of the petitioner for the determination of their suitability by the PPSC within a fortnight from today positively.
18. Punjab Public Service Commission is directed to proceed and finalize the process within a period of two months after the receipt of the requisition from the Inspector-General of Police. The instant writ petition is allowed in the above terms. .