MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Abdul Ghafoor, Head---Constable No. 843 has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the order dated 22nd July, 1981 passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore (communicated on 28th November, 1981) whereby his representation review petition regarding the promotion was rejected.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 22nd July, 1981 be set aside and the respondents be directed to consider him for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police with effect from the date he deserves with all back benefits.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was recruited on 1st May, 1947 in Punjab Police as Foot Constable. He was admitted to the Promotion List C-I on 1st September, 1958 and was promoted to the rank of Head Constable on 1st June, 1960 and has served the Police Department for more than 34 years. On 19th September, 1960 he was charge-sheeted by D.S.P. Saddar Circle, Lahore with the allegation that he demanded a sum of Rs. 50 as illegal gratification from one Muhammad Shujjat Khan for letting him of in case registered against him on 15th November. 1965 under section 6 of the Gambling Ordinance of 1961. He was also alleged to have remained absent from the Police Station and for misuse of the Government Motor Cycle. Consequent upon the service of the charge-sheet by toe D.S.P. Saddar Circle, Lahore, the S.S.P. Lahore vide orders dated 25th January, 1967, 4th February, 1967 and 23rd October, 1967 directed that his three years increments with cumulative effect be withheld that his name be removed from promotion list C-I and reverted to his substantive rank of Constable with effect from 1st October, 1967. The appellant submitted departmental appeals against the order of the S.S.P. Which were rejected. Then he filed a civil suit, which was ordered to abate. The appellant filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge which was accepted by the Court and the case was remanded to the Civil Judge for decision on merits. Ultimately the civil suit of the appellant was decided vide judgment/decree dated 24th March, 1976 passed by Mian Abdul Qayum, Civil Judge, Lahore and the orders passed by the S.S.P.
Referred to above were declared to be a nullity and were held to be in-operative on the rights of the appellant. He was declared to be continuous to hold the post of an officiating Head Constable selection grade in Punjab Police. The Department did not file any appeal against this judgment and decree, which attained finality. Consequently D.I.-G. Of Police, Lahore vide his order dated 17th August, 1976 confirmed him as Head Constable w.e.f. 1st September, 1966. 1'he appellant made a representation to the Department that he being senior most in list C-I, he should be considered for promotion and selection for training in the Intermediate Course at Sihala but his request was turned down on the ground that the appellant had become overage and was not eligible for further promotion. The appellant continued pressing his claim by way of representations and review petition but without any beneficial results and all of them were rejected. His last representation according to the appellant was rejected on 9th July, 1981. Hence the present appeal.
4. We have beard Mr. Ghulam Rasul Chaudhary, Advocate behalf of the appellant and the learned District Attorney assisted by Mr. Qamar Abbas Zaidi, P.I, on behalf of the respondents and have also perused the record very carefully. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that he as a Head Constable has a spotless service record to his credit. As such he is eligible for promotion or for training for Intermediate Course at Police Training School, Sihala. He has submitted that the appellant has become overage only due to illegal orders passed by the S.S.P. In the year 1967 which were declared as such by the Court in year 1976 and he should not be allowed to suffer due to the illegal action on the part of the S.S.P. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has been discriminated in the matter of relaxation of age because the Inspector- General of Police vide his order No. 8/5104/75, dated 19th May, 1975 exempted A.S.I. Munawar Hussain Shah No. 1412 of Rawalpindi District from passing the Intermediate School Course and also relaxed the upper age limit to the extent of six months and 20 days in respect of H.C. Hamid Ahmed No. 1,885 of Lahore District to enable him to undergo the next Intermediate School Course vide his order No. S/533/76, dated 24th January, 1976. On the other hand he learned District Attorney has submitted that accepting the judgment of the Civil Court passed on 24th March, 1976 the appellant was confirmed as Head Constable w.e.f. 1st September, 1966 vide order dated 17 August, 1976. He has also submitted that the case of the appellant for relaxation in upper age limit for Intermediate School Course was considered and rejected by the I.-G. P. Vide order dated 2nd September, 1976, which was communicated to the appellant. The appellant sub--mitted another application on 31st March, 1977 for grant of interview in connection with his seniority which was forwarded to the I: G. P.
The appellant also made an application on 21st February, 1980 which was rejected vide order dated 6th September, 1980. His last application filed on 23rd July, 1980 was also rejected vide order dated 9th July, 1981 which was communicated to the appellant on 22nd July, resent appeal 1981. As such the learned D. A. Has sought that the impugned order for the purpose of would be the order dated 2nd September, 1976 and his subsequent appli--cations would not enlarge the time for limitation prescribed for tiling the present appeal ; as such the appeal should be dismissed as time-barred.
On merits, he has submitted that although the appellant was otherwise eligible for Intermediate School Course yet he had become overage in the year 1976 and has now became more overage by lapse of 6 years period in the year 1982. The matter of relaxation of rules is by the discretion of the Departmental Authorities, and each case is to be decided on merits. He has submitted that the precedents quoted by the appellant are not applicable to the case of the appellant. He has alsoth submitted that this Honourable Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order the Departmental Authorities to relax the rules which is within their exclusive jurisdiction.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts td the arguments of the parties and also perused the record of the case very carefully. With regard to the plea of limitation raised on behalf of the respondents the record shows that the first representation of the appellant was rejected on 2nd September, 1976 which in fact, is the impugned order within the meaning of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act and the appellant should have approached this Tribunal within 30 days of the communica--tion of that order. The mere fact that the appellant had been agitating his claim before the Department would not enlarge the period of limita--tion for the purpose of the present appeal. As such we hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as time-barred. With regards to the merits of the case as are oblivious of the fact that in the matters of rules, this Tribunal is precluded to pass any positive order directing the departmental authorities to relax the rules in favour of any of the civil servants. The relaxation of rules is the sole prerogative of the departmental authorities and this Tribunal cannot interfere in their rights to exercise their discretion in this respect. As such we are afraid that we cannot direct the respondents to relax the upper age limit to enable the appellant to undergo training in the P.T.C, Sihala. Since the appellant does not fulfil the requisite qualifications for promotion in the rank of A.S.I. Or Sub-Inspector because he is overage, so it is not possible for us to direct the Department to consider him for promotion as such or for nominating him for training at P.T.C. Sibala for Intermediate Course.
6. In view of the above analysis we hold that there are no merits in the present appeal which is liable to be dismissed on facts as well as being barred by time.
7. However, before parting with the judgment we may observe that the appellant has become overage only because he was found in--eligible for promotion or training at P.T.C. Sibala due to the illegal orders passed by the S.S.P. Which were ultimately declared a nullity in the eyes of law by the Civil Court. Since the impugned orders were declare nullity, so it shall be deemed as if there were no orders at all against the appellant. Since there is no fault of the appellant and he is not to be blamed for becoming overage which was occasioned due to the passing of the illegal orders by the S.S.P. As declared by the Civil Court, so we with that the departmental authorities had passed the order regarding relaxation keeping in view of the pros and cons of the case of the appellant and the instructions the Government regarding por forma pro--motion issued by S & G A Department dated 16th October, 1973 amend--ed from time to time.
8. With these recommendations in para. 7 above, the appeal is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.