1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-By this appeal under section 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970. Ch. Ghulam Haider, Officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police, appellant, claims that he be placed according to his seniority in the Select List below D. S. P., Mr. Khalil Hassan Above respondents Nos. 3 to 34 and a direction be, to Inspector General of Police, respondent No.1 to grant all consequential benefits to the appellant.
2. The appellant is representedby Mr. Ghulam Majaddid Advocate. The Inspector-General of Police Service, Commission, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Mr. G. Hamayun, Government Pleader. Respondents Nos. 3 to 34 are all absent in spite of service.
3. The brief fact out which this appeal has arisen are as follows: The appellant, having joined the Police Department as Aasis- r nt Sub-Inspector of Police on 15-3- 1945, was promoted as officiating Inspector on 5-4-59, and was confirmed as such in 1969 w.e.f. 3- 5-1968. Under rule 5 of the West Pakistan Deputy Superintendents of Police Service Rules, 1964, a Select List is prepared y the Inspector-General of Police with the approval of the Public service Commission. In that list, names of officers approved for promotion as D. S. P. are maintained in order of seniority, whose promotions are to be made, as far as maybe, in accordance with the order. This rule provides as under:-- "5. Method of recruitment.-(1) The Inspector-General shall maintain a Select List in Form I appended to these rules of Inspectors who were considered art for promotion to the Service in the respective Branch. The Select List shall be in parts and each part shall appertain to a separate Branch.
4. (2)---------------------------------------------------------.
(3) No entry shall be made in the Select List to be maintained under the provisions of this rule nor shall an entry appearing therein be removed or the order in which the names appear in it be altered without the previous approval of the Commis--sion.
(4) When an appointment is to be made from among persons whose names appear in the Select List the order in which the names appear in the Select List shall as far as may be followed."
5. A perusal of rule 5(l) shows that it is a list of Inspectors who are considered fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent f Police. Under sub-rule (3), no entry or alteration shall be ale in the Select List except with the approval of the Public service Commission. The appointments of D. S. P. are to be made, as far as may be, in the order in which the names appear in the list.
6. In 1967, when the name of the appellant was considered for being placed on the Select List, he was ignored on the reason that n enquiry was pending against him with the Anti Corruption department. Instead of the appellant, Mr. Ghulam Hussain, inspector, who was junior to the appellant, was placed on the elect List in June 1968. Consequently, the appellant represent -- against it and he received a reply dated 2-7-68 to the effect at he had not been formally superseded, but that the placing f his name on the Select List was deferred because his Character oil was not available. A vacancy had been reserved for him red a decision would be taken as soon as his case was completed he appellant's name was brought on the Select list on 12-11-69 red he was promoted as Officiating D. S. P. on 21-5-70. In the elect List, his name was placed on the list in accordance with he date on which he was approved for the Select List. In con--sequence, when his name appeared in the official Gazette of 30 June 1970, amongst the police officers who have been allocated, to the different Provinces, he figured at No. 119. It has beer conceded before us that this list was published in the order of seniority. Therefore, the appellant made a representation praying for being placed higher in the Select List, as he was confirmed as Inspector w. e. f. 3-5-68.
7. He prayed for approval of his name to be brought on the Select List from June 1968, above Mr. Ghulam Hussain. This representation was rejected by order dated 7-10-70, by which he was informed that his request could not be acceded as his previous supersession from his name being placed on the Select List was based on his service record, and he could not be assigned revised seniority amongst officiating Deputy Superintendents of Police, as requested by him.
8. The background which led to rejection of his representation has been given by respondent No. 1 as follows.
9. In April 1967, the conduct of Ch. Ghulam Haider - Bhatti was under enquiry by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. As such while submitting recommendations for admission of names of Inspectors of Police considered fit for promotion as officiating Deputy Superintendent of Police to the police Service Commis--sion we informed the West Pakistan Public Service Commis--sion that suitable recommendations would be made after the result of enquiries pending against this officer was known to us. In August 1967, the Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore, informed us that the Provincial Anti-Corruption Coun--cil had decided to drop the enquiry. The Officer was accord-- ingly confirmed as Inspector of Police with retrospective effect i.e. 3-5-68 when his immediately junior Mr. Ghulam Hussain Khan, now officiating D. S. P./Special Branch, Lahore, was confirmed as Inspector of Police. On receipt of the clearance report from the Anti-Corruption Department, his case for admission of his name in the Select List was reviewed by the then Inspector-General of Police, West Pakistan, viz. Mr. S. D. Qureshi, who noted "Honesty questioned a number of times. He is not to be recommended for the Select List." The same recommendation was communicated to the Commission vide our letter dated 2-11-1967. The Public Service Commission agreed with the recommendation vide para.3 of their letter No. 4397-CDII-68-PSC/601-D, dated 6-6-1968. However, the commission observed that the case of Ch. Ghulam Haider Bhatti would be considered when he had earned good reports. Accordingly, his case along with others was considered in August/September 1969, and it was finally decided that there was no justification for his continuedth super session especially when the officer had received 'A' Reports for the years 1965. 1966, 1967 and 1968. The officer wasconsequently recommend--ed for admission of his name fn the Select List vide our letter dated 2-9-69 to which the Commission also agreed vide their letter dated 12-11-1969 and his name was placed below Mr. Ahmad. Khan, Officiating D.S.P./Special Branch, Lahore and above Mr. Mukhtar-ud-Din, Officiating D.S.P./S.D.P.O. Nan-kana, District Sheikhupura, in, the Select List. After his pro--motion as D.S.P. Ch. Ghulam Haider Bhatti submitted similar representation to this office. After due consideration we recommended to the Public Service Commission that the officer should be restored his original seniority amongst D. Ss. P. i.e. in between Messrs Khalil Hassan and Ghulam Hussain Khan. The Commission, however did not agree with out recommend--ation vide their letter dated 22-8-69. The relevant advice of the Commission is reproduced below:-- ------..Since Ch. Ghulam Haider Bhatti was earlier superseded in 1968 from the Select List on the basis of his record, antedat--ing his confirmation as Inspectorretrospectively is no reason in itself to upset the supersession. They are, therefore, unable to agree with the proposal that name of Ch. Ghulam Haider Bhatti may be brought on the Select List between Messrs Khalil Hassan and Ghulam Hussain. Keeping the above advice in view it would not be possible to assign revised seniority to Ch. Ghulam Haider Bhatti as requested by him. This is because under rule 5(3) of the D.S.P. Service Rules, no entry can be made in the Select List nor shall any entry appearing in it be altered without the previous approval of the Commission."
10. From the above, it appears that his name was not brought on the Select List from a date earlier than the one on which the name of Mr. Ghulam Hussain was brought on the list, because the Public Service Commission did not agree to it. As would appear from rule 5, which has been quoted above, concurrence of the Public Service Commission was necessary for any change or alteration in the entries in the Select List and when the Public Service Commission did not agree, the Inspector-General of Police was justified in rejecting the appellant's representation and inform-- ing him of its rejection.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our particular attention to the fact that the appellant had received 'A'Reports for the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 and he, therefore, argued that it was an eminently fit case for inclusion of his name in the Select List in 1968. This is, however, a matter which had to be decided by the I. G. Police in consultation with the Public Service Commission and is not a matter in which we can interfere. It is unfortunate for the appellant that when the name of Mr. Ghulam Hussain for inclusion in the Select List was forwarded to the Public Service Commission, the Inspector-General of Police noted against the game of the appellant that his honesty was questioned on a number of times and he was not being recommended for the Select List and this recommendation was agreed to by the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Com-- mission in his case noted that his case would be considered when he had earned good reports as during the years 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 and the enquiry had been dropped against him. His name was recommended for admission to the Select List.
12. This was agreed to by the Public Service Commission, his name was placed on the Select List on 12- 11-1969 and he was promoted as Officiating D. S. P.
13. The appeal before us relates, not to a Seniority List, but to a Select List, which is intended to contain the names of Inspec--tors approved for promotion, and cannot, therefore, be treated as a seniority list from which an appeal lies to us under section 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1970. We have no jurisdiction to interfere with entries made in the Select List, it not being a seniority list, as contemplated by section 8 of the Ordinance.
14. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is dismissed, with no order as to costs.