1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-By this appeal under section 4 of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordi--nance, 1969, Mr. K. M. Aslam Malik, Prosecuting Inspector of Police has prayed that his seniority may be fixed and declared jointly along with all other confirmed Inspectors of Police of the General Branch, and he be placed at, No. 48 in the seniority list of confirmed Inspectors of Region No. 3. In the amended appeal, which was filed without being signed, he prayed that his seniority may be fixed among Inspectors of Police, including Prosecuting Inspectors in accordance with the date of promotion to the selec--tion grade. This prayer raises the question of inter se seniority of the appellant vis-a-vis respondents Nos. 3-12 in Annexure `L'.
2. They ate shown at serial Nos. 10-19 in this list, the appellant being at No. 20.
3. The appellant argued his own case. The Inspector- General of Police and the Province of Punjab, respondents 1 and 2 were represented by Mr. A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader. Out of respondents Nos. 1--71, Messrs Israrul Haq and Rizwanul Haq have appeared before us. The other respondents are not present.
4. The appellant did not wish to add anything to what has been argued by Mr. Ghulam Hussain in Case No. 523/224 of 1970. Since he merely adopted the arguments put forth by Mr. Ghulam Hussain in respect of the prayer originally made in his application, it is enough to say that we find no force in this prayer, which we reject on the grounds stated by us in our order in that case.
5. As to the second prayer of the appellant claiming seniority over respondents Nos. 3-12, it may be mentioned that the appellant was appointed as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector on 24 March 1953 and was confirmed with effect from the same date. He was promoted against an ex-cadre post asth Prosecuting Ins--pector on 22-10-1955 and posted to Azad Kashmir. Thus he contends that his date of promotion mentioned as 11-9-1956 is incorrect. He was confirmed as Prosecuting Inspector with effect from 14th May 1956. He passed his Prosecuting Sub-- Inspector Examination held in February 1955, was granted selection grade con 11th December 1958, and his name was brought on `F' List with effect from 14th June 1960 by order dated the 23rd June 1960.
6. The service particulars of respondents 3-12 are stated in the seniority list (Annexure----L---). We have also indicated in this list the dates of grant of selection grade to them. In the ease of Mr. Israrul Haq, he was appointed as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector on 23-1-1948. He was confirmed on 21- 1-1951. He was promoted as Prosecuting Inspector on 1-10-1954. He was award--ed selection grade on 28-3-1960. He passed the Prosecuting Inspector's examination without credit in 1951 and with credit in 1959. Mr. Rizwan-ul-Haq respondent No. 8 was appointed as Prosecuting Sub-Inspector on 15-7-48, way confirmed as Prosecut--ing Sub-Inspector from 15-7-1951 was promoted as Prosecuting Inspector with effect from 15-10-1954 and was confirmed from 5-8-1961. He passed the Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors Examination without credit in 1950 and with credit in August 1958. He was awarded selection grade with effect from 1-12-1959.
7. The appellant claims seniority over respondents Nos. 3-12 on the ground that his name should have been brought on 'F' list from an earlier date and he should have been conformed from an earlier date.
8. In respect of the claim of the plaintiff to seniority over respondents 3 -12, attention may be brought to rule 12 2(3) of the Police Rules which provides as follows:- "Seniority in the case of upper subordinates will be reckoned in the first instance from the date of, just appointment, officer promoted from a lower rank being considered senior to persons appointed direct on the same date the seniority of officers appointed direct on the same date being reckoned according to the age. Seniority shall, however, be finally settled by dates of confirmation. The seniority inter se of several officers confirm--ed on the same date being allotted to them on first appointment."
9. On the basis of the above mile, reference to the seniority Its an the dates of confirmation of the appellant and the respondent 3-12 will show that he figures at the proper place in it and respondents 3-12 were confirmed earlier than him he cannot claim seniority over them, since his seniority is to be finally settled by the dates of confirmation, the material date of confirmation being in the rank of Prosecuting Inspector.
10. The appellant having drawn our attention to rule 13.15(4) has argued that since he was awarded selection grade earlier than the respondents, his name should have been placed higher in 'F' list, which would mean earlier confirmation for him. Rule 13.15(4) provides as follows:- "Seniority in list 'F' will be in accordance with the date of entry in that list. Sub-Inspectors admitted to list 'F' on the same date will be placed in that list according to the date of permanent promotion to the selection grade and if the date of permanent promotion to the selection grade is the same in the case of the two or more Sub-Inspectors admitted to list 'F' on one and the same date, then according to the date of permanent promotion to the time scale. "
11. We find that names of 15 persons were brought on this list on the same day, namely 23-6-1960 and instead of placing their names in accordance with the date of award of selection grade, they have been assigned dates of admission to list ---F---. According to the Department, the dates of admission to list 'F' have been staggered to avoid any confusion and to establish their integrated seniority according to the date of confirmation as Prosecuting Sub-- Inspectors. This is not, however, permitted by rule 13.1.5(4) as priority in list 'F' should have been arranged in accordance with g the date of award of selection grade, when all these persons were being brought on list 'F' from the same date. There is, therefore, force in the contention of the appellant that priority in list 'F' which governs seniority and promotion to higher rank has been fixed in violation of the above Police Rule by the respondents. It is, however, necessary to point to rule 13.14(2) which provides that no Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible for promotion to a selection grade unless he has at least 8 years approved service as an upper subordinate, of which at least five years in the rank of Sub-Inspector, and unless he is thoroughly efficient and com--petent to hold charge of a Police Station of first class importance. The award of selection grade to Sub-Inspectors has been made in contravention of Police Rule 13.14(2) if the rule is not waived as provided in this sub-rule. The position taken by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 before us is that the rule was not waived by the Inspector-General of Police and the appellant is unable to C show that it was so waived. Therefore, though the name of the appellant was not brought on 'F' list in accordance with Police Rule 13.14(2) it appears that selection grade was awarded to him before the expiry of 8 years in violation of Police Rule 13.14(2). We, however, desire that this matter should be examined by the competent authority to determine whether by reason of earlier award of selection grade, his name should not have received priority in ---F--- List and confirmation from an earlier date. That decision must rest with the competent authority.
12. It has been argued by Messrs Israrul Haq and Rizwan-ul-haq that they are much senior to the appellant by reason of their earlier appointment as Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors and promotion as Prosecuting Inspectors, and if they have been confirmed earlier, their relative seniority has been maintained, and there is no case for interference by us. There is no force in their claim that they were basically senior. They are senior to the appellant even on the basis of date of confirmation.
13. Since the date of confirmation of the appellant is not earlier than the dates of confirmation of the respondents and seniority is finally determined under the rules by the date of confirmation, we are unable to declare the appellant senior to the respondents. His appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.