1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---The petitioners/applicants who are Police Constables in Punjab Highway Patrol have impugned the common judgment of the Lahore, High Court dated 31.7.2013 passed in I.C.A. No.294/2013 whereby the learned Bench while dismissing the appeal, maintained the order of the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers declaring the Punjab Highway Patrol, Traffic Police Wardens and Police Constabulary different cadres of police and constables from such wings were not entitled to apply for the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) in the "Punjab Police" against 25% quota for promotion cases for graduate serving as Police Constables/Head Constables.
2. 2.Briefly, the relevant facts are that the Punjab Public Service Commission Lahore on 11.3.2012 issued a consolidated advertisement inter alia, for filling 170 posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASIs) in the "Punjab Police" against 25% quota for promotion cases for graduate serving as Police Constables/Head Constables. It appears that respondent No. 4 namely, Ali Imran, a police constable serving with Punjab Police approached the Lahore High Court by filing a writ petition challenging the participation of the police constables from other wings such as Traffic Police Wardens, Police Constabulary and Patrolling Police against 25% quota. The petition, after hearing the parties, was allowed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers vide its order dated 2.4.2013 on the basis of concession made by the Inspector General of Police Punjab that the participation of the candidates from other forces/wings of the Punjab Police such as Traffic Police Wardens, Police Constabulary and Patrolling Police was against the law/rules. It appears that some of the police constables from Punjab Highway Patrol, on their application, were impleaded as respondents in the writ petition including the present petitioners and some moved applications for their impleadment in appeal. A Bench of learned High Court, after hearing the petitioners as well as other applicants, dismissed the appeal by maintaining the order of the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers. The record reveals that some more applicants/police constables from Punjab Highway Patrol have approached this Court for their impleadment by filing C.M.A. No. 44-L/2014 which is also being heard today.
3. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it has been the consistent practice that police constables from all the departments including the Punjab Highway Patrol were allowed to participate in the Punjab Police against 25% quota for promotion cases for graduate police constables/head constables, therefore, the petitioners could not be given a different treatment. As to the rules which provides for recruitment promotion criteria for the members of Punjab Highway Patrol, it was contended that though such rules were notified on 5.3.2012 but were published subsequently and, therefore, the petitioners could not be deprived from applying for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors in the Punjab Police against 25% quota for promotion cases. Reliance has been placed on the case titled Government of the Punjab, Food Department v. United Sugar Mills Ltd. (2008 SCM R 1148).
4. 4.The learned counsel for the applicants in C.M.A. No.44-L/2014 who are also constables from Punjab Highway Patrol contended that they have been condemned unheard, however, the learned counsel conceded that the case of the applicants is at par with the case of the petitioners and that he would adopt the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
5. 5.We have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants and perused the record minutely. It appears that he stance of the Inspector General of Police Punjab to the effect, that the service rules for Punjab Highway Patrol, Traffic Police Wardens and Punjab Constabulary are not only separated but their method of A appointment and promotion track are also separated and further that in each wing, the requirement and skill are different, carries weight and has IB been rightly accepted by the learned High Court. Additionally, practice in violation of rules does not confer any' enforceable right. Further, the record reflects that the Government of Punjab, Police Department while exercising powers conferred under section 112 of the Police Order, 2002 (Order No.22 of 2002) had approved the recruitment criteria and terms C and conditions of service for members of the Punjab Highway Patrol, perusal whereof reveals that it not only provides recruitment, as well as promotion criteria for the members of Punjab Highway Patrol but also lay the procedure of merger in executive branch and at a specified level. We are not impressed with the contention that since the rules of the Punjab Highway Patrol were not notified, therefore, could not be D considered; firstly, application and/or enforcement of the service rule was not contingent with the date such rules are notified nor the petitioners/applicants could claim that such rules would not apply to them till they are notified. Secondly, in the case of Muhammad Siddique v. Market Committee, Tandlianwala (1983 SCM R 785), this Court while rejecting the contention that the enforcement of rules before they could be notified offends the principle of natural justice enshrined in maxim audi alteram partem, held that every new Act or a rule framed thereunder interferes with private rights and nobody has ever thought of questioning the wires of the statute or a rule or a notification that it offends against the rule of audi alteram partem. As to the case of Government of Punjab Food Department supra, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, suffice it to observe that the rule itself provided that control, supply distribution etc. of the sugar could be made through a notified order and for this reason the memo on the basis whereof sugar mills were directed to deposit certain amounts on their sale, was found invalid.
6. In the foregoing circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition calling for interference by this court in the well reasoned impugned judgment. These petitions along with C.M.A. No. 44- L/2014, as a consequence, are dismissed and leave to appeal refused.