S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Azadar Hussain and 22 others have filed an appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which they have impleaded D. 1.-G. Police, Multan Range, Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore and Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal as respondents. By virtue of this appeal it has been prayed that the impugned orders of D. I.O., Police, Mu-Ban, contained in his letter 24276/B. E. Dated 4th October, 1979 whereby names of the appellants have been removed from List B-I, and that of Inspector-General of Police, Punjab's letter No, 15601/E-IV dated 14th September, 1980 be set aside and the appellants' name be restored in List B-1 with effect from the date of removal. It has been further prayed that the costs of the appeal be also allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are serving constables in District Police, Sahiwal directly under respondent No,
3. Vide Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal's letter dated 8th July, 1979 a competitive examination for promotion to List B-1 was held at Sahiwal during the last week of July, 1979 under the direct supervision of S. P., Sahiwal and his A. S. P. Out of 133 constables who appeared in this examination only 28 qualified for promotion to List B-1. The Superintendent of Police officially reported the conduct and result of this examination to D. 1.-G., Police, Multan (respondent No. 1) on the same date. The entry into List B-1 was formally made in the Order Book vide No, 156 dated 16th August, 1979 (13. R. 14.54), notified and acted upon. After six weeks' retention the D. 1.-0., Police, Multan was pleased to remove the names of the appellants from the promotion list without any notice to them. These orders were conveyed to the Superintendent of Police Sahiwal vide Letter No, 24276/13. E. Dated 4th October, 1979. The Superintendent of Police, Sahiwal in response to the above letter requested the D. I.-G. Police that the said names be allowed to be retained. A representation was made to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab through proper channel with regard to the deletion so made under the orders of the D. I.-G. Police from the List B-1 of the names of appellants but there was no response and thus the appellants were constrained to file an appeal before this Tribunal,
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by Mr. Tariq Majeed, Prosecuting Inspector, Sabiwal, and have perused the record of this case with their assistance. It has been urged on behalf of the appellants-
(a) that the Superintendent of Police's Urdu Parwana (Annex. 'IV) based on D. I.-G. Police's impugned order removing the appellant's names from promotion List B-1 does not disclose the grounds for removal ;
(b) that the D. I..G. Police, Multan, removed the names of the appellants without issuing show- cause notice or giving them any opportunity of being heard in person ;
(c) that the removal of the names could only be effected for two reasons :-
(i) becoming overage or
(ii) infliction of a major punishment which do not exist in the case of the appellants ;
(d) that the jurisdiction so exercised by the D. Police was not vested in him by law ;
(e) that entry in List B-1 was duly notified, acted upon and implemented by Superintendent of Police in terms of Police Rule 19.14 and thus could not be cancelled or withdrawn in view of the prevalent law.
4. On the other hand it has been contended that non of the appellants could be considered eligible for such course until and unless the entry of such names in List B-1 was approved by the D. I.-G., Police. It was further submitted that this approval was necessary for the reason that the age factor had to be determined in such cases therefore the list prepared by respondent No, 3 had to be sent to the D. I.-G., Police, Multan, for approval keeping in view the above age factor and he was within his right to disapprove the same. According to the learned District Attorney this was a pre-requisite condition in accordance with the Police Rules. With regard to the S. P's Urdu Parwana the learned District Attorney argued that this by itself did not confer any vested right as it was only a piece of information. While adverting to the grievance that no show-cause notice was issued it was submitted that no such provision in the Police Rules entitles the appellants to this concession. It was vehemently contested that Police Rules 13.7, 13.8-A and 16.33 were not attracted in the present case. A justification was made for disapproval by the D. I.-G., Police on the ground that as the list had become unmanageable therefore the D.I.-G. Police was within his right to cancel the same.
5. We have given or anxious thought to the points raised by both the parties and find that rule 13.7 runs as under :- "List B (Form 13.7) shall also be maintained by each Superintendent of Police and shall be divided into two parts- Selections shall be made from this list as vacancies occur for admission to the courses concerned at the Police Training School provided that no constable shall be considered eligible for any such course until the entry of his name in List B has been approved by the Deputy Inspector-General. No constable, who has failed to qualify at the Training School shall be re-admitted to the list unless the Superintendent of Police and the Principal of the School are in agreement that he is deserving of another chance of qualifying in the course ; in the event of disagreement as to such a case the D.
I.-G. Shall decide."
The plain reading of this rule leaves us in no doubt that the entry into List B-1 does not require or contemplate the approval of the D. I.-G. Police concerned and it is only the District Superintendent of Police who is competent to enter the qualified constables in List B-1 and make relevant entries in the Order Book (Police Rule 14.S4) and the D. L-G.'s approval at this stage is uncalled for as well as unwarranted. The D. I.-G. Comes into the picture only at one stage and that is when a constable fails in the Training Course and his re-admission is under consideration and there is a disagreement on this issue between the Principal and the Superintendent of Police of a District ; then only he is a deciding factor. We have also perused rule 13.8-A which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and are of the considered opinion that the mischief of this rule is not attracted in the case of the appellants as none of them has suffered any major punishment as envisaged under this rule. It is also established on the record that the List B-1 was duly notified in . The Order Book and the appellants were duly informed that they have been so selected. We are of the opinion that once a vested right had been created in favour of the appellants due to above action of the S. P.. A who was a competent person in this behalf the same could not be cancelled or withdrawn. We find support in or above observation in Police Rule 19.14 which entitles the appellants to be posted to Police Stations as Assistant Clerks. The record of the case reveals that a number of the appellants were so posted in pursuance of rule 19.14. We are fortified in or view vide Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Al. Hamayat Farukhi wherein it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded once it has taken legal effect and certain rights created in favour of an individual.
6. In the light of the above discussions we are of the considered decision that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and, therefore, we proceed to set aside both the impugned orders and accept the appeal. The respondents are directed to restore the names of the appellants in List B-1 as it stood on 4th October, 1979. There will however be no orders as to the cost. PLD 1969 SC 407