JUDGMENT: CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, C.J.--- The titled appeal by leave of the Court is filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 19.02.2016, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed.
2. The appellant, herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court on 22.10.2015 and claimed that vide advertisement dated 03.07.2013 various posts of constables reserve/ranger were advertised.
His father is serving as Assistant Director B-17 the Police Department, so he applied for the job against 5% quota reserved for children of Police employees. He passed the test and interview and secured 56-1/2 marks. His name was entered at serial No,58 of the general merit list. It was further claimed that the official respondents instead of inserting the name of petitioner in the merit list of policemen sons and appointing him on regular basis as constable against the reserved quota, appointed him as constable on contract basis vide order dated 23.07.2013, whereas, the private respondents who are lower in merit have been illegally appointed as constables on regular basis.
He prayed for direction of his regular appointment. The learned High Court, after necessary proceedings dismissed the writ petition through the impugned judgment.
3. Mr. Fiaz Ahmed Janjua Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellant after narration of necessary facts submitted that the impugned judgment of learned High Court is result of misconception of law and facts. The authority vide notification dated 16.11.2011 fixed 5% vacancies of constables for children of serving and retired police officers/officials. The father of the appellant is admittedly the police officer/official serving as Assistant Director BPS-17 in the Police Department.
In furtherance of the advertised posts, the appellant also appeared in test and interview and obtained 56-1/2 marks, whereas, from the District Muzaffarabad the children of police officers/officials who obtained less marks have been appointed while discriminating the appellant on the ground that his father is serving in the Police Department in ministerial staff, thus, he does not fall within the scope of reserved quota. The appellant feeling aggrieved filed a writ petition which has been decided by the learned single Judge of the High Court through the impugned judgment. The learned single Judge has fell in error of law and facts. The father of the appellant, who is admittedly serving as Assistant Director in the Police Department, falls in definition of police officer/official. The opinion drawn by the learned High Court is against law and facts, therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. Consequently, while accepting this appeal the prayed relief directing for appointment of the appellant according to merit being son of police officer/official, be granted.
4. Conversely, M/s. Raza Ali Khan, Advocate-General and Kokab Al Saba Roohi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that although the appellant is son of Assistant Director of the Police Department and he also appeared in test and interview and obtained 56-1/2 marks but as his father is not police officer/official, therefore, he cannot be appointed against reserved quota. His father is serving in the ministerial staff which is not included in the scope of prescribed quota, therefore, the impugned judgment is in accordance with law calling for no interference.
5. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and examined the record made available. The material facts have been admitted by the respondents in their pleadings. It has also been admitted that the father of appellant, Manzoor Ahmed Awan, is serving in the Police Department in the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police reserve/range as Assistant Director BPS-17. It is further admitted that 5% quota for the children of serving/retired police officers/officials is fixed. The factual proposition of appearing of the appellant in test and interview and obtaining 56-1/2 marks is also admitted. The only reason advanced for not appointing him is that his father is serving in the ministerial staff of the police department, thus, he is not included in the definition of police officer/official. It will be beneficial to reproduce here the relevant part of the notification dated 16.11.2016, which reads as follows:- "5% of the vacancies of Constable shall be filled in from amongst the children of serving/retried police officers/officials against the said quota as Constable, such recruitment/ appointment shall be made by the appointing authority on the recommendation of Departmental Selection Committee."
In this notification the words used are "children of police officers/officials". There is no distinction of District, range, reserve police or field or ministerial staff. The word used is "officers/officials".
According to sixth Edition of Black's Law Dictionary the word "officer" means "a person holding the office of trust, command or authority incorporation, government, armed services or other institution or organization". Same like, the word "official" is also defined as "a person invested with the authority of his office". In view of clear phraseology of the notification dated 16.11.2016 and dictionary meaning it hardly requires any further deliberation that all the permanent civil servants of police department fall within the scope of "officer/official". Our this view also finds support from the provisions of section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 as enforced in the Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The referred section reads as follows:- "2. Constitution of the force.- The entire police establishment under a Provincial Government for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be one police-force, and shall be formally enrolled; and shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be constituted in such manner, as shall from time to time be ordered by the Provincial Government."
The above statutory provision clear speaks that the entire police establishment is deemed to be one police-force. As admittedly, the appellant's father is serving in police establishment holding the post of Assistant Director, thus, he falls within the scope of the notification dated 16.11.2016 and is police officer/official. Thus, the authority as well as the High Court has drawn incorrect conclusion.
6. According to the admitted facts, the merit position of the appellant is higher to the candidates appointed from District Muzaffarabad who obtained 55 and 54-1/2 marks, whereas, the appellant obtained 56-1/2 marks. Thus, denial of the right of the petitioner regarding his appointment against 5% quota being son of police official is against law. Therefore, while accepting this appeal and recalling the impugned judgment of the High Court the writ petition filed by the appellant is accepted and the authority is directed to appoint him being son of police official according to his merit position.
This appeal stands accepted with no order as to costs.