' Jawad-ul-Hassan, Member-II/(D&SJ).--Since common questions of law and facts are involved in the instant case, therefore, we intend to dispose of all the above titled appeals through this single judgment.
2. Epigrammatically stated the facts of the case are that in the year 2010 all the appellants were serving as Constables in District Police, Sialkot. The respondent DPO, Sialkot got held the departmental promotion examination for enlisting the constables in list B-I. Total 239 eligible constables including the appellants participated in the said examination. In order to conduct the promotion examination, a board comprising of then ASP/SDPO, DSP Hars, Sialkot and DSP Legal Sialkot was constituted under the supervision of then Addl. SP Sialkot. According to criteria as laid down by the Board successful candidates had to obtain 50% marks in each paper and 60% in aggregate. Only those candidates were called for interview who qualified in the written examination. On 2.4.2010 the then DPO, Sialkot issued a merit list of successful candidates, declaring them successful by the promotion board for admission to list B-I. Total 73 constables were declared as such. The appellants in Appeals No, 3120, 3236, 4033 and 4274 of 2011 called in question such list of successful candidates through departmental appeal addressed to DIG Gujranwala Range which remained pending, hence these appeals.
3. In appeals in hand, all the appellants narrated that most of them were F.A, BA, M.A and even LLB and declared failed. It is added that list of successful candidates dated 2.4.2010 shows and proved their relationship with high-ups and the administrative committee constituted for the purpose of conducting the promotion examination. In this regard, some names were mentioned in appeals such as Riaz Hussain real brother of Tehsir Cheema, Shahid Riaz SIs who remained present in the examination hall. Likewise, Sami Ullah Constable was also a close relative from maternal side of one Arshad Cheema 0/SI and Arshad Ali Constable was related to Riaz Inspector. It was narrated in the appeal that the first list of successful candidates was quite different from the list dated 2.4.2010 issued by the DPO, Sialkot. The appellants averred that discriminatory treatment was meted out to them. They mentioned that the list dated 2.4.2010 by the DPO, Sialkot is against the spirit of service law of the country which violates the principles of natural justice in which the appellants were ignored. It was mentioned that service tribunal in case of Raees Iqbal etc. (Appeal No, 4078 of 2010) directed DPO, Sialkot to enlist the appellant therein in `list B-I. Such direction was issued on the same ground raised by the appellants against list B-I dated 2.4.2010.
4. The respondents/department contested these appeals by pouring in their comments in writing.
The DPO, Sialkot narrated in his comments that a board comprising ASP/SDPO, Daska, DSP Legal Sialkot was constituted under the supervision of the Addl. SP Sialkot for conducting the examination. The criteria was fixed according to the directions and embodied in the Standing Order 8 of 2001 issued by the IGP which was strictly followed. According to his comments following criteria was given: Written Papers
(1) a. General Law = 60 a. General Knowledge= 40 Total = 100
(2) a. Police rules = 50 a. PPW = 30 Total = 80 Grand Total = 180 ' The successful candidates have to secure 50% marks in each paper and 60% in the aggregate.
(3) Interview ' Only those candidates will be called for interview who qualify in the written papers.
' The merit list was required to be prepared on the basis of marks in the written paper and interview out of total marks 200. According to the comments the entire examination was conducted under the supervision of specially constituted board, purely in accordance with the criterion laid down by the IGP in the Standing Order No, 8 of 2001. On the completion of the examination a complete list of successful candidates was fixed at police lines Sialkot. The DPO, Sialkot denied the discriminatory treatment as mentioned in the memorandum of the appeals. He referred that a board was constituted according to the directions of the IGP Punjab as contained in standing Order No, 8 of 2001.
5. The appeals in hand were disposed of by this Tribunal vide consolidated judgment dated 18.1.2012. According to the said decision, the examination of B-I are conducted in all the Districts in Police Department in terms of Rule 43.7 of Police Rules, 1934 and the examinations are regulated in line with the Standing Order No, 8/2001 issued by the IGP. In the said decision this Tribunal opined that no discriminatory treatment was meted out with the appellants and their names were not incorporated in list B-I due to lower position in the said examination. However, relief was granted to one constable namely Hamid Farooq No, 949/C. In terms of said findings the appeals were disposed of.
6. 11 Constables namely Rais Iqbal, Muzaffar Hussain, Javed Akhter, Niaz Ahmad, Azhar Abbas, Azhar Hussain, Rifaqat Ali, Saijadul-Hassan, Jamshed Iqbal, Mst. Lubna Nasrullah and Mst. Zubaida Bibi were also aggrieved of the list of in question, accordingly filed their joint appeal Bearing No, 4078 of 2010 which was decided on 23.6.2011 by this Tribunal. This appeal was accepted and the department was directed to enter the names of the appellants (therein) in list B-I against the vacant posts available on the strength of examination which they have already qualified on 27.3.2010. Record speaks that their names were enlisted by the DPO, Sialkot vide order dated 8.8.2011.However, the department called in question order dated 23.6.2011 before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan through CN No, 101-L of 2012 which remained abortive as the honourable Supreme Court observed the same being barred by time.
7. All the appellants of appeals in hand being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 18.1.2012 invoked the jurisdiction of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing their Appeals Bearing No, CA Nos. 577-L, 578-L, 579-L, 580-L, 581-L, and 585-L of 2012. The said CPs were decided by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan alongwith CP No, 101-L/2012 as filed by the DPO, Sialkot.
These appeals were decided by the honourable Supreme Court vide order dated 6.2.2013, The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in view of fair stand as taken by the learned Advocate General, Punjab while allowing these appeals, observed that the service appeals of the appellants before this Tribunal be deemed as pending. It was further observed as under: "As the question of law is rather important and is likely to affect police force, it is directed that a full bench of the learned Service Tribunal shall hear and decide the matters within six weeks of the receipt of this order."
' The legal question as raised before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was that the Standing Order No, 8 of 2001 which was issued by the IGP, Punjab in purported exercise of Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 was not a valid order as prior approval of the Provincial Government, which was pre-requisite, had not been obtained. Two cases i.e, 1998 SCM R 2013 and 2001 SCMR 408 were referred to and canvassed that approval of Provincial Government to issue a standing order was sine qua non. In these circumstances all the appeals were sent back to be heard afresh.
8. Learned counsels for the appellants representing all the appellants unanimously stated that some constables had also challenged the list B-I as issued on 2.4.2010 through Service Appeals No, 4078/2010 in which the relief as asked for was granted and their names were enlisted subsequently.
They stated that the case of the appellants is at par with those appellants and they may be awarded the same relief. In respect of legal, question as to the validity of the Standing Order No, 8/2001, the learned counsel relied upon 1998 SCM R 2013 and 2001 SCMR 408 and kept on arguing that the appellants had good service record and in view of their academic record they are entitled for enlistment in the list B-I. They stated that all the appellants had passed the examination but on account of favoritism, nepotism and jobbery, they have been denied their valuable rights.
9. Conversely learned D.A assisted by the D.R resisted the contentions of the learned counsels for the appellants and stated that the examination of the constables was held for enlistment of their names in list B-I in terms of Standing Order No, 8 of 2001 issued by the IGP, Punjab. Further stated that the criterion as laid down was strictly adhered to. To a pointed question they stated that the standing order was validly issued by the IGP, Punjab according to Police Rules, ,1934 which have protection of the law. They stated that the Standing Order No, 8 of 2001 was issued accordingly and the same has protection of Article 270(AA) clause 6 of the Constitution of Pakistan and Article 185(a) of Police Order, 2002. They stated that the appellants have no case in their favour as they have failed to pass the said promotion examination, therefore, these appeals may be dismissed.
10. Arguments heard and record perused.
11. In view of order of the honourable Supreme Court vital and foremost question before this tribunal is that whether the Standing Order No, 8/2001 as issued by the IGP, Punjab in exercise of power of Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 is valid order. Whether the prior approval of the Provincial Government was obtained or not and said approval is a sine quo non-or not. The Standing Order No, 8 of 2001 as produced, the same was examined. Its perusal shows that no date was mentioned therein on which the said order was issued. Likewise, the recital of the said standing order is silent as to obtaining the requisite prior approval of the Govt. Of the Punjab. What is mentioned is that this standing order is being issued in the implication of Pb. Police Rules, 1934 (13.5) (13.6) (13.7) in order to reintegrate the importance of maintenance of the promotion list and holding competitive examination regularly to have efficient constables to occupy higher posts. The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were framed in accordance with Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861. These rules were further amended vide Gazette of Punjab, Part-III dated 27.4.1983 Bearing No, 7258/M-III which states that IGP amended these rules with the prior approval of the Govt. Of Punjab as contained in Home Department Letter No, HP-III/1-7/80 dated 30.4.1983. The said amendment shows that the IGP has amended the rules accordingly with the prior approval of the Government. To ease, the Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 is reproduced as unde:-- Section 12 (Power of Inspector General to make rules)
"The Inspector General of Police may, from time to time, subject to the approval of the Provincial Government, frame such orders and rules as he shall deem expedient relative to the organization, classification and distribution of the police force, the places at which the members of the force shall reside, and the particular services to be performed by them; their inspection, the description of arms, accoutrements and other necessaries to be furnished to the; the collecting and communicating by them of intelligence and information; and all such other orders and rules relative to the police force as the Inspector General, shall from time to time, deem expedient for preventing abuse or neglect of duty, and for rendering such force efficient in the discharge of its duties."
' The interpretive analysis of Section 12 makes it abundantly clear that the prior approval of the Govt. Of the Punjab was a pre-requisite condition for promulgation and enforcement of any rules, standing orders, instructions by the IGP, Punjab. Such permission by the Pb. Govt. Was not produced or indicated, even the prior approval of the Government was not mentioned in the recital of the standing order of 8/2001. Regarding promotion of the constables to the selection grade of constables, there already existed a Rule 13.5, 13.7, 13.8, 13.8-A of the Police Rules, 1934 which prescribes the procedure and requirements including qualifications etc. It appears that IGP through the Standing Order 8 of 2001 brought some changes and amendments by laying down certain criteria of the selection. In Muhammad Nadeem Arils case 2011 SCM R 408 the honorable Supreme Court held as under:- "Section 12 of the Police Act confers power upon the Inspector General of Police to frame rules after securing approval from the Government of the Punjab. The learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to bring on record any document to show that the memorandum dated 23.2.2002/8-11 or any instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police has the backing of the Government of the Punjab. The said provision was interpreted in Siddique Akbar's case 1998 SCM R 2013 wherein Standing Order No, II issued by the Inspector General of Police having not been approved by the Provincial Government was devoid of its legal status and was, therefore, of no legal authority by observing that merely because a Standing Order has held ground for a number of years is not sufficient to assume grant of approval. The basic memorandum relating to the policy/rule which was issued by the Inspector General of Police, in favour of the petitioners was not valid itself having any legal backing, therefore, learned High Court has justified to declare the same having no legal sanctity."
' It is evident that IGP actually as per his own convenience amended the rules 13.5, 13.7, 13.8, 13.8-A of the Police Rules, 1934. In recently celebrated judgment on 21st amendment in the Constitution, the honorableSupreme Court of Pakistan observed that the amendment means a modification or alteration and assigning the meaning to the amendment as to correct and improve but does not extend to destroy or abrogate. For amending the rules ibid which cater the system of promotion and selection of constables proper procedure and requirements were required to meet the pre- requisite viz the prior approval of the Provincial Government under Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861.
In case in hand such approval was not obtained, therefore, in view of the above mentioned legal position, we find that there was no legal sanction (approval) behind the Standing Order No, 8 of 2001. Thus the said standing order is declared void ab initio and having no legal effect right from the date when it was issued.
12. Next question before us is that whether Section 185 of Police Order, 2002 provides the protection to Standing Order No, 8/2001. The Police Order, 2002 came into force (promulgated) on 14.8.2002.
Article 185 of the said Police Order was inserted therein to repeal the Police Act, 1861 but the same section providing save all rules prescribed etc. As discussed herein above the Standing Order No, 8 of 2001 was issued by the IGP without prior approval of the Government therefore, the same was not prescribed rule, thus we found the said standing order was not saved and protected by the article 185 of the Police Order, 2002.
13. For what has been discussed above, we hold that the Standing Order No, 8 of 2001 is void abnitio and has no legal effect of any kind. It does not create any rights in favour of any person. We further hold that the examination for admission to list B-I held on 26.3.2010 in the District Sialkot of the constables of the said district was void, without sanctity in the eyes of law, which at all has not created any right of promotion or enlistment of Constables of District Sialkot to list B-I. Before parting with the case in. Hand we direct IGP, ,Punjab to act according to the law on the subject for the promulgation of new standing order on the subject, if so advised. We feel it appropriate to hold that the consequences of this judgment be adhered to in all cases. As a result of the discussion and findings recorded, the list of B-I constables issued by the DPO, Sialkot on 2.4.2010 Bearing No, 8545-48/SCR and all subsequent amendments made therein, is scratched and as such deemed to be non-existent.
14. In view of above terms, the appeals to the extent of DPO's order and list B-I dated 2.4.2010 are accepted and decided accordingly in the terms mentioned herein above.