1. ' Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the appellant submitted an application for recruitment of his son (appellant) in the Police Department on family claim basis. Subsequently, the appellant was appointed as Constable in the Mounted Police purely on temporary and family claim basis by the then CCPO, Lahore vide Order No. 23437/E&T-VI dated 19.5.2011 subject to verification of the documents and 'antecedents. The appellant was medically examined and joined the Police Department vide letter dated 19.5.2011. Subsequently, in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the CCPO, Lahore withdrew/recalled the said appointment order of the appellant and others vide impugned order dated 13.6.2011. His departmental appeal was also rejected vide impugned order dated 16.12.2011 by IGP, hence this appeal.
2. 2.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was subjected to discrimination as his colleagues, who were appointed in the same appointment letter after termination, were freshly appointed. He stated that after the appointment of the appellant in the police department the CCP, had no authority to recall his own order. It was stated that the orders 13.6.2011 and 16.12.2011 are void initiation, based on surmises and conjectures. The appellant was appointed on the recommendations of the Board. It is stated that discriminatory attitude was adopted against the appellant while showing favoritism. In this regard it was referred that two constables M. Umar and Noman Liaqat who were terminated along with the appellant, were surprisingly re-appointed on 10.10.2011. He argued away, while pouring scorn upon the impugned orders and asked for setting aside the same.
3. 3.The learned District Attorney vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant. He defended the impugned orders passed by the departmental authorities. He prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.
4. 4 Arguments heard and record perused.
5. 5.According to the contents of the appeal as mentioned in Para No. 2 Umar Draz Khan, the father of the appellant submitted an application for appointment of his son (appellant) on family claim basis. It is not the case of the appellant that his father was not alive at the time of his appointment on family claim basis. Rule 17-A of Punjab Civil Servants (A & C of Services) Rules, 1974 was intro(' aced therein through a Notification No. SORIII-2-42/92 dated 28.8.9. Undeniably, this provision was inserted and was treated later on as beneficial to the unemployed children of deceased civil servants and those who were declared invalidated/incapacitated for further service. In this regard, the IGP issued a Notification No. 126-260/SE-II/VIII on 5.1.2009. According to which if a member of police dies while in service or is declared invalidated or incapacitated for further service and his child, widow, widower or spouse has applied for a post in the police in BS-1 to 5 or junior Clerk B-7 being eligible for the appointment of the post, shall be appointed on such post without observing the formalities relating to advertisement etc., According to the comments, the appointing authority under said rule/notification was bestowed the power to appoint on family claim basis with the prior approval of the Provincial Police Officer. The service rules and laws are framed by the Provincial Govt. In view of Articles 240 and 241 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Punjab Civil Servants (A & C of Services) Rules, 1974 were promulgated by the governor of the Punjab in view of powers conferred upon him under Section 23 of the Punjab Civil Savants Act, 1974. The rules ibid of 1974 and Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 were promulgated by the Provincial Govt. In exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Articles 240 and 241 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The deviation from such rules which has backing and sanction of Constitution of Pakistan, in no case be given shelter of any kind. No can put the glass upon such violation. In the case in hand the then CCPO, Lahore without considering the basic intent of provision of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (A & C of Services)
6. Rules, 1974 and notification of the IGP on the subject, unceremoniously appointed the appellant without digging out as to whether the father of the appellant was alive or not, was incapacitated for further service. It has not been denied that at the time of the appointment of the appellant, his father was alive. The provisions of Rule 17-A and notification of IGP are beneficial to the children of the deceased civil servants. The children of in service civil servants (parents) were not given the benefit of Rule 17-A ibid. In view of above, the appointment order of the then CCPO, Lahore dated 19.5.2011, whereby the appellant was appointed on family claim basic was without jurisdiction for the reasons mentioned herein above and also void as approval of the IGP was not secured. In case in hand the principle of locus penitential is not applicable, because the order of appointment dated 19,5.2011 was violation of law and Article 240 and 241 of the Constitution. Of Pakistan, 1973. The CCPO, Lahore while recalling and rescinding the order dated 19.5.2011 acted within the jurisdiction as bestowed upon him under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and validly recalled the appointment of the appellant in the police.
6. For what has been discussed above, no case is made out to interfere in the impugned orders, resultant, ,the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.