1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-This is an appeal under section 4 (1) of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969, by Khan Shaukat Ali Khan, Prosecu--ting Inspector, Sadiqabad. By this appeal, he impugners the seniority list of Prosecuting Inspectors, corrected up to 31-12-1969, and produced as Annexure `G'. He claims that his name should figure is this list at serial No. 22 in place of M. Zaman Khan and not at serial, No. 54.
2. Khan Shaukat Ali Khan, appellant, is present along with Mr. A. A. K. Lodhi, Advocate.The respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Mr. A. G. Humayyun, Government Pleader. Out of respondents 3 to 34, respondents Nos. 3, 4, 5, 12 and 42 are present. The other respondents being absent in spite of service, proceedings are ex parte against them.
3. The appellant was recruited as P. S. I. in the Multan Range on 1-3-1954 and. though he failed in the P.
4. S. I. Examination, held at the Police Training School in February 1955, he qualified in it in November 1955, without credit fie passed that examination with credit in August 1959, Khan Zaman Khan, respondent No. 3 was recruited as P. S. Is. on 1-3-1954, but he ranked junior to the appellant as he was younger in age. He and the appellant were confirmed as P. S. Is. from 1-3-1954. Muhammad Sharif respondent No. 6 was recruited as P. S. I. oil 13-4-1954, and confirmed from the same date.
5. Muhammad Jamil respondent No. 7 was recruited as P. S. Von 14-4-1954 and confirmed from the same date. Muhammad Said Khan, respondent No. 9 was recruited as P. S. I. on 30th September 1954, and confirmed from the same date. Therefore, the appellant ranks senior to them in the rank of P. S. 1. by having been confirmed from 1-3-1954, a date earlier than the date of confirmation of respondents 6, 7 and 9 and respondent No. 3, being younger in age.
6. When the case of officiating promotion as Prosecuting Inspector was taken up on 28th May 1956 and respondents 3 and 6 Khan Zaman Khan and Muhammad Sharif were promoted as officiating P. S. Is. the case of the appellant was not considered. Again on 2-6-1956, when respondents Nos. 6 and 7 Muhammad Sharif and Muhammad Jamil were promoted as officiating Inspectors, the case of the appellant was not considered. The reason for not considering him for officiating promotion was that the Principal, Police Training School not having sent his roll to the D. I. G. of Multan Range, the D. I. G. did not forward his name to I. G. for consideration for promotion. This has been admitted in the comments filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. It has further been stated that if this un-- fortunate omission had not occurred, and the roll of the appellant had been sent to the I. G. of Police, he would certainly have been promoted as officiating P. I. The appellant's grievance is, therefore, genuine that he should have been promoted in 1956, but in actual fact, he has been promoted as P. I. on 23rd October 1959. He made a representation against the promotion of respondents 3, 6, 7 and 9, who were junior to him. This representation did not meet with success that it deserved, as it is apparent from the comments furnished by respondent No. 1, that he would have been promoted in 1956 if there had not been an omission by the D. I. G. of Police in forwarding his roll to the I. G. of Police. This was, therefore, a fit case in which he should have been granted pro forma promotion from 28th May 1956, when his juniors respondents 3 and 9 Khan A Zaman Khan and Muhammad Said Khan were promoted. We are of the view that he should, therefore, be promoted as Officiating Inspector from 28th May 1956.
7. While the appellant was promoted as Prosecuting Inspector from 23rd October 1959, he was confirmed w. e. f. 11th November 1969. Khan Zaman Khan, respondent No. 3 was promoted as Inspector from 27th May 1956, and confirmed w. e. f. 14-5-1966. Muhammad Sharif respondent No. 6 was promoted as Inspector on 2-6-1956, and confirmed from 14-5-1966. Muharumad Jamil, respondent No. 7 was promoted as Inspec--tor on 5th June 1956, and confirmed from 14-5-1966.
8. Muham--mad Said Khan respondent No. 9 was promoted as Inspector on 27th May 1956 and confirmed from 14th May 1966. There--fore, respondents 3, 6, 7 and 9 having been confirmed as Inspectors from a date earlier than the date of confirmation of the appellant, they became senior to him. Of this the appellant feels aggrieved. He prays that the dates of their confirmation should be altered to make him senior to them. The grounds on which he seeks earlier date of confirmation as Inspector, are: that his date of promotion was postponed from 56 to 59 for a default in sending his roll to the Inspector General of Police for promotion as Officiating Prosecuting Inspector and secondly that his case was not considered in the Multan Range for being granted the special grade, which delayed the bringing of his name on `F' List and consequently delayed his promotion.
9. It is alleged on his behalf that as his lien was transferred to Sargodha Range, his name was not considered by D. I. G., Multan Range along with that of Fazal Muhammad Khan, who was junior to him at the time of award of special grade to the latter on 16th April 1960. It appears that though appellants' lieu was transferred to Sargodha Range, he remained posted to the Multan Range.
10. Having seen the relevant files, we have satisfied ourselves that his name was duly considered by D.
11. I. G., Multan Range along with Fazal Muhammad Khan for the award of special grade and that the latter was preferred so that the appellant was superseded in the award of the special grade.
12. Therefore, there is no force in the grievance, which the appellant makes on the ~ score that his name was not considered for the award of special grade, which was due in Multan Range in April 1960. His grievance, however, remains that if be had been promoted in 1956, his name may have come on `F' List earlier and he may have been confirmed from an earlier date. We have tried to ascertain from the departmental file-the reasons for fixation of his date of confirmation as 11-2- 1969, but are unable to discover the reasons. The reason may be that he came on `F' list later than some of the respondents. If by reason of big earlier promotion in 1956, his date of confirmation would need to be changed, the matter would need to be gone into by the Inspector-General of Police. On our own, we find ourselves unable to interfere, in the circumstances of the case with the date of confirmation.
13. That the date of confirmation being what it is, namely 11-2-1969, the ranking of the appellant at No. 54 in the impugned seniority list is not shown to be incorrect. We dispose of this appeal as observed above, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.