' S. HAFEEZ-UR-REHMAN (MEMBER).-This appeal by Ashfaq Ahmad, Inspector of Police, is against the orders dated 18th December, 1973, 10th April, 1979 and 4th March, 1981. By the first order, the respondent, i,e,, the Inspector-General of Police admitted certain Sub-Inspectors to promotion List "F" w,e,f, 15th December, 1973 but did not include the appellant. By the second order, the Addl. I.-G.P.
Ante-dated the admission to List ,F' of Inspector Shah Mahmood, one of the contesting respondents and again ignored the appellant. By the third order the respondent turned down the representation of the appellant in respect of ante-dating his admission in List "F". The reason given for passing him over was that he needed more grounding in executive Police work, specially as S.H.O., before he could be considered for higher responsibility. The appellant was finally admitted in List "F" on 18th May, 1975 whereas he wants this date to be taken back to 15th December, 1973 thus according to him seniority over the contesting respondents.
2. The parties were heard. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that his experience in the Special Branch and Crime Branch was not counted for purpose of admission in List "F", and had that been counted he would have been promoted because otherwise he had admittedly a very good record of service. According to the learned counsel for the appellant rule 13.14 sub-rule (3) of the Police Rules allows inclusion of such service. In this behalf the case of Iftikhar Ahmad Butt v. I.- G.P. (Appeal No, 128/614 of 1980, decided on 15th February, 1981) was cited, wherein this Tribunal had accepted that in view of rule 13.14 (3), there was no bar to counting service other than executive Police work as service at par with the holding of charge of a Police Station of 1st Class importance.
3. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader and the learned Prosecuting Inspector maintained that the point at issue was whether the appellant had been considered for admission in List 'F' or not because this was a matter of promotion and under the law the appellant could only ask for being considered. It was clear that he had Non considered and on the basis of insufficient experience as S,H.O. He bad been ignored. He had, been twice recommended for admission in List 'F' but other and better persons had been selected. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the appellant asserted that the only point taken by the T.-G.?. Against the appellant was that of not enough service as S.H.O.
4. Having heard the parties and having kept in view the case of Iftikhar Ahmad Butt cited on behalf of the appellant we are inclined to agree with the appellant's arguments. The record of the appellant has been described as undoubtedly good, therefore there is nothing on that score to distract attention ; only the legal aspect of the matter is left for adjudication. The report and parawise comments filed on behalf of the Respondent endorse the argument that the appellant was by-passed on the basis of lack of experience S. H. O. Only. The Addl. I.-G.P.'s order of 24th November, 1973 in this behalf reads as follows : "He has experience of investigation and has worked as S.H.O. As well, but his posting record indicates that he needs more grounding in executive police work, specially as S.H.O., before he can be considered for higher responsibilities. This officer worked in the Special Branch as A.S.I., and has been with the Crime Branch now for two years, not on regular posting but on loan. D.I.-G. Multan Range is advised to get him back from the Crime Branch and post him in a heavy Police Station as S.H.O. On the whole he possesses a slightly above average record. To wait."
Rule 13.14 (3) of the Police Rules is clear, and it is on the basis of this rule that this Tribunal held in favour of Iftikhar Ahmad Butt in Appeal No, 128/614 of 1980, that his service in the Special Branch was at par with service as S.H.O. In the presence of this rule we cannot hold otherwise. It is also admitted by the respondent department that Fazlur Rehman and Shah Mahmood, Sub-Inspectors, were admitted to List 'F' with retrospective effect on representation, which means that an error of judgment can be corrected in this manner.
5. In view of the above the appeal is accepted. The appellant will be deemed to have been admitted in List 'F' w,e,f, 15th December, 1973 and as a consequence will be given his due seniority- vis-a-vis the contesting respondents. There will be no order regarding costs.