1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-These three appeals by Messrs Zia-ud-Din Khan, Syed Maqbool Hussain and Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Khan under the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969, will be disposed of by one order, as they arise out of similar facts, involve the same question of law and facts and as they all claim seniority over Messrs Nisar Ahmad and Mahmood Hussain Ansari, respondents 3 and 4.
2. Mr. Zia-ud-Din Khan, appellant, in Case No. 352/150 was recruited as A. S. I. Police on 1st April 1934, was promoted as officiating Inspector on 8t11 February 1948 and was confirmed as Inspector on 17th July 1954. His name was placed on promotion List 'G', now known as Selection List, for promotion as D. S. F. on 9th July 1955. He was promoted as Officiating D. S. P. on 11th February 1957 (without the prior approval of the public Service Commission), and was confirmed as such on the 1st of April 1966. He was promoted as Officiating S. P. on 30th of October 1968.
3. Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah, appellant, in Case No. 353/136, joined the Police as A. S. I. on probation on 1-4-1937, was promoted as Officiating S. I. in December 1940, and was confirmed as such in March 1943. His name was brought on Promotion List `F' in 1946. He was promoted as Officiating Inspector on 5-4-1948 and was confirmed on 17-7-1954. Isis name was brought on Promotion List 'G' on 9-7-1955, and he was promoted as officiating D. S. P. on 6-3-1957. He was confirmed as D. S. P. on 27th January 1968, w. e. f. 11 the April 1966. He was promoted as Officiating S. P. on 1-7-1970.
4. Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Khan, appellant in Case No. 354/136 joined on 1-4-1936 as A. S. 1., Police, and was promoted as S. 1. He was promoted as Officiating Inspector on 5-6-1948 and was confirmed as Inspector on 17-7-1954. His name was placed on Promotion List 'G' on 9-7-1955, and he was promoted as Officiating D. S. P. on 12-7-1957. He was confirmed as D. S. P. on 21-4-1966 and was promoted as Officiating S. P. in 1970, later than Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah.
5. All the three appellants claim seniority over Messrs Nisar Ahmad and Mahmood Hussain Ansari by challenging their retrospective promotion and confirmation as D. S. P. by the Notification, dated 10- 5-1969, by which they were presumptively promoted w. e. f. 16-5-1956 and confirmed from 2-7- 1964, by reason of which, the seniority of the three appellants as D. S. P. was affected, and they became junior to the two respondents in the seniority list as corrected up to 1-7-1969. Thus the seniority in dispute is as D. S. P. though the parties have all since been promoted as Officiating S. P.
6. Ch. Nisar Ahmad, respondent No, 3, was directly recruited as Inspector on probation on 10-4-1952 and was confirmed from that date on 19th April 1955. His name was placed on Promotion List 'G' on 2-9-1957. He was actually promoted as Officiating D. S. P. on 1-11-1957, and on 27-1-1968 was confirmed w. e. f. 11-5-1966, but by Notification dated 10-5-1969, his presumptive date of promotion as D: S. P. was notified on 10-5-1969 as 16-5-1956, and his presumptive date of confirmation was notified as 8-7-1964. Though in the seniority lists of 1965 and 1968 issued prior to 1-7-1969) he was shown junior to Mr. Zia-ud-Din Khan appellant, he ranked senior to him and the other two appellants, in the seniority list corrected up to 1-7-1969 in consequence of the Notification, dated 10-5-1969, giving him retrospective presumptive dates of promotion and confirmation.
7. Mr. Mahmood Hussain Ansari was recruited as Inspector of Police on three years probation on 11-4- 1952 and was confirmed from the same date on 19-4-1963. His name was placed onPromotion List ---G--- on 2nd September 1957. He was promoted as Officiating D. S. P. on 1-10-1957 and was confirmed w. e. f. 21-5-1966, by order dated 27-1-1968. By Notification dated 10-5-1969, his presumptive date of promotion and confirma--tion was notified as 16-5-1956 and 2-7-1964. He was promoted as Officiating S. P. in 1970.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended firstly that there is no power in the Provincial Government to confirm an official with retrospective effect, and secondly that any how confirmation cannot take place from the date of appointment as these being two distinct dates, must remain different. With regard to the first contention, it is argued that there is no power in the Government to make its order retrospective as its orders must take effect prospectively. This contention is not well founded. The right to confirm vests in the Government as employer, and there being no rule or practice of general application, Government has reserved to itself the right to A determine below, when, and in what-manner and with effect from what date confirmation will be made as pointed out by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Muhammad. Nasim Ahmad and others v. Miss Azra Feroz Bakhat and others (1). There is no unreasonableness in this, for it is only the employer who can say when a probationer is to be considered-to have become fit for permanent retention according to his requirements, and until then the probationer can have no lien to, or right of retention in the service. But all other conditions being fulfilled, as confirmation can and does in most cases relate back to the date of original induction into service. There can be no doubt that confirmation is a matter, which must of necessity depend on various circumstances, such as availability of a permanent post against which a person can be confirmed, the satisfactory completion of the period of probation, the up rising of depart--mental examination, if any, and the over all policy of the Government. But it does appear that Government has in the past, if all other conditions are fulfilled, confirmed as officer from the date of his original appointment if a permanent post was then available, as the service, it is said, abhors vacuum. These observations of Supreme Court meet the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants fully. Therefore, ordinarily a discretion vests in an employer to confirm from a retrospective date, and even from the date of appointment. The second contention, which the learned counsel wanted to raise on the language of the rule, has not appealed to us. There is nothing in the language of Police Rule 12.2(3), which supports the contention of the learned counsel that the date of confirmation must necessarily be different from the date of appointment. We see a no obstacle in the way of confirmation being ordered from the date of appointment, which is the usual practice, or even from an earlier date, in very exceptional cases, as in this Case.
9. Indeed the Chief Secretary to Government of Punjab in letter No. 5886/G-51/73210, dated 16th October 1951, addressed to all the Hearts of the Department, issued the following instructions to be followed as a uniform procedure in all Departments of the all Government:- "As, however, it is desirable to adopt a uniform procedure in all the Departments, the Provincial Government has decided in consultation with the Central Government that in cases of confirmation in future the service rendered by a Government Servant on probation should, unless the relevant rules prescribe otherwise, be treated as service renderedin a substantial capacity, and accordingly the date of confirmation of a probationer deemed fit for confirmation by the competent authority should be the date of his appointment on probation and not any subsequent date."
10. The confirmation of Messrs Nisar Ahmad and Mahmood Hussain Ansari, respondents, as Inspectors, as ordered was in conformity with the instructions of the Provincial Government of general application, and in accordance with the discretion vesting in the Government as held by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court. There can be no valid objection, therefore, to retrospective confirmation of both the respondents from the date of their appointment on probation, namely 10th and 11th April 1952, respectively. These dates of confirmation being earlier than the date of confirmation of the three appellants they ranked senior as Inspectors to the three appellants under rule 17 of the Punjab Police (Deputy Superintendents of Police) Service Rules, 1952, which provided the date of confirmation in the service as the rule of seniority.
11. We notice that the appellants were not confirmed as Inspectors from the dates of their original appointments as Inspectors, and it appears to us to be curious that they have not claimed the benefit of the Circular letter of the Chief Secretary for the last 26 years. We are unable to understand the reason for it, but it may be that they have not claimed its benefit for the reason that they were not appointed on probation and their cases did not fall within the purview of the Circular letter. Since the appellants have neither raised the issue in the grounds of appeal, nor addressed any arguments to us, we cannot give them the benefit of retrospective promotion. It appears that as they were satisfied with their dates of confirmation as Inspectors, they have not moved in the matters. Their omission to claim retrospective confirmation as Inspectors cannot be for the reason that they challenge the right of the competent authority so give retrospective dates of appointment, as they could have raised an argument in the alternative that if such power is available, it should equally have been exercised in their favour. There fore, we have to take the dates of confirmation as we find them, and have to decide their seniority as Inspectors on that basis, as the Government and Public Service Commission did.
12. The above observations of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have equal force and application to notifying the appointment of the two respondents, Messrs Nisar Ahmad andMahmood Hussain Ansari from presumptive dates with. retrospective effect. The dates assigned to them of promotion and confirmation as D. S. P. in Notification dated 10-5-1969, are even earlier than the dates from which they started officiating as D. S. Ps. Their presumptive date of promotion as notified is 16-5-1956 and the date of confirmation is 2-7-1964. The dates of promotion and confirmation are both earlier than the dates of promotion and confirmation of the three appellants. As a result, if the dates could be so assigned retrospectively then the two respondents are senior to the three appellants both under rule 17 of the Punjab Police (Deputy Superintendents of Police) Service Rules, 1952, and rule 9 of the West Pakistan (Deputy Superintendents of Police)
13. Service Rules, 1962, rule 9 provides the date of continuous appointment as the rule of seniority. It was in order to restore the seniority of the two respondents that presumptive dates of promotion and confirma--tion were notified in their case. In view of the above observations of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in Muhammad Nasim Ahmed and others v. Miss Azra Feroze Bakhat and others, we are unable to uphold the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants that there was no power to assign or notify the presumptive dates of promotion and confirmation of the two respondents retrospectively and from dates, which were even earlier than the dates of actual.
14. Appointment andperformance of their duties as D. S. Ps. As observed by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court, the right vests in the Government as employer and Government having reserved to itself the right to determine how, when, and in what manner and with effect from what, date, confirmation will be made, the objection as to retrospective fixation of dates has no real force, and as in our view Government had the power in the peculiar circumstances of this case to assign and notify dates with retrospective effect (and remember that the Government has acted on the advice of the Public Service Commission to notify dates of promotion and confirmation) we must take these dates into account for the purposes of application of the rule of seniority. As such under the rules, the two respondents are entitled to rank senior than the three appellants. Indeed such power must exist in the Government for otherwise the application of the rule of seniority can cause hardship and there will be no power in any one to rectify it. Any interpretation that leaves the Government powerless in a matter within its discretion must naturally be avoided.
15. When rule 9(1)(b) provides, a rule of seniority with reference to the date of ---continuous appointment---, the question, which must be considered, is whether the date need not be confined to the data of actual appointment. It may well include a supposed or presumptive date of appointment or in very exceptional cases a date even prior to that from which a civil t servant has functioned in the high rank. We are not inclined to rigidly confine the date of appointment to actual dates of functioning in a grade alone as date of continuous appointment. We are inclined to interpret those words in the rule in their wider meaning so as to include the dates of appointment as notified by the appointing authority and not necessarily the actual date of promotion to a higher grade. It may be the actual date or it may be an assumed date, which may presumptively be fixed to the discretion of the Government with a view to restore seniority or to avoid the causing of hardship or injustice to a civil servant. Thus we are inclined to hold as valid the dates of appointment presumptively fixed with retrospective effect in the case of the two respondents and see no invalidity in them. Even if our interpretation be not correct, we consider that this was a fit case for the Government to exercise its power or relaxation under rule 12, and to make appropriate orders under rule 14 of the 1962 Rules in order to safeguard the rights of the two respondents, which were threatened by reason of ignoring the advice of the Public Service Commission, and to avoid a hardship and injustice, which may well seriously effect the official career of the two respondents.
16. As the claim of the appellants to seniority as D. S. P. over the two respondents is based on super session and rule 9 of the West Pakistan (Deputy Superintendents of Police) Service Rules, 1962, that rule is reproduced below :- "9. (1) The seniority inter se of the members of the service in various grades thereof shall be determined- (a)in the case of officers appointed by initial recruitment, in accordance with the order of merit assigned by the Commission; provided that persons selected for the service in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in a later selection; and
(b) in the case of officers appointed otherwise, with reference to the dates of their continuous appointment therein provided that if the date of continuous appointment in respect of two or more officers is the same, the older officer, if not junior to the younger officer or officers in the next below grade, shall rank senior to the younger officer or officers.
17. Explanation l.-If a junior offices in a lower grade is promoted to a higher grade temporarily in the public interest, even though continuing later permanently in the higher grade, it would not adversely affect the interest of his seniors in thefixation of his seniority in the higher grade.
18. Explanation II.-If a junior officer in a lower grade is promoters to a higher grade by superseding a senior officer and subsequently that officer is also, promoted the officer promoted first shall rank senior to the officer promoted subsequently.
19. (2)--------------------------------------------------------------------------- The names of Messrs Zia-ud-did Khan, Syed Maqbool HussainShah, and Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Khan appellants, were brought on Promotion List `G' on 9-7-1955 and they were promoted a, Officiating D. S. Ps. without the approval of the Public Service Commission on 11-2-1957, 6-3-1957 and 12-2-1957 respectively, le question, which, therefore arises for consideration and decision is whether by their names being brought on the Promotion by their earlier promotion without the approval of the P. S. C. hey superseded the two respondents, Messrs Nisar AhmadMahmood Hussain Ansari, and become senior to them in the 10 rank of D. S. P. Before adverting to this question, we would like to say that a super session is only involved if there takes place a - comparative examination of service records of two or mere individuals by an authority competent to appoint and determine whether the senior of the two should be ignored from promotion. This necessarily involves an examination of and a decision on the comparative merits of service records of each individual and without such comparison and ignoring of a senior man, there can be no super session.
20. With regard to the names of the three appellants being brought on the Promotion List 'G' on 9-7- 1955, we would like to mention that the Promotion List was not prepared under any Police Rules, or even under the Punjab Police (Deputy Superinten--dents of Police) Service Rules, 1952. These rules provided that the appointment to the post of D. S. P. shall be made by Government. After considering the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. Under its rule10 of the appointment by promotion from the rank of Inspector shall be made by Government after consulting the Commission on the suitability of the selected persons. Therefore, the approval of the Commission as to the suitability of the selected persons was a pre-requisite - of promotion of an Inspector to the rank of D. S. P., but if such approval has not been obtained, the promotion cannot be deemed to be substantive, or conferring any substantive right to the promotee and the appointment remains merely ad hoc subject to G the approval of the P. S. C.,until approval is accorded. Because the promotion list 'G' was not being prepared under any Police Rules, and it conferred no right or status in law, no sanctity attached to it, and there could not be said to be any super session involved if the names of any comparatively senior officer is not brought on the Promotion List, for super session to take place. Appointment by promotion as D. S. P. of a junior officer with the approval of the P. S. C. should have taken place. The promotion list was drawn up by the 1. G. Police and even if it was approved by the Provincial Government, it can only be deemed to be a list of Inspectors departmentally approved for promotion, and no higher status can attach to those whose names have been brought on this list. The prior approval of the Public Service Commission was needed to their promotion as D. S. P. Therefore, in the names of the three appellants being brought on the list, no super session of the two respondents was involved. It is clear to us that the names of the two respondents were not brought on the list in the belief that under an existing convention that they should have completed five years service as Inspector before their names could be brought on the Promotion List and they could be promoted as D. S. P.
21. As to this aspect of the case, the 1. G. Police in his written statement has explained, and we agree with him, that the grounds on which Messrs Nisar Ahmad and MAHMOOD Hussain Ansari were ignored for admission to the selected list had neither any statutory backing nor had the support of any Coda of instructions and no specific period of service in the rank of Inspector of Police for, promotion of directly recruited Inspectors of Police to the rank of D. S. P. had been prescribed. Ch. Nisar Ahmad in his representation quoted the names of four directly recruited Inspectors, namely Miaa Rafi-ud-Din. Qazi Salim Bakhtiar, Ch. Iftikhar Ahmad and Ch. Muhammad Amin, who were actually promoted as officiating D.S.P. before the completion of five years service it was also lost sight of that by the time the names of the three appellants were placed on the Promotion List 'G', the two respondents had successfully completed their period of probation and had been confirmed, so that no reason existed for not considering their case on the merits for being placed on the Promotion List. Above all, if their names were not considered on the merits, they cannot be said to have superseded by the mere fact that some junior---s names were brought on a select list in the mistaken belief of the existence of a convention. That list was being maintained in the office of the 1. G. Police for his convenience for sending names of selected Inspectors to the Public Service Commission for obtaining approval of their promotion.
22. The earlier officiating appointment of the three appellants does not even involve any super session of the two respondents, because there was no comparative examination of their service records for the purpose of determining who the more suitable for higher promotion was. The two respondents were ignored on the supposition that five years service was necessary before they could be considered for promotion. Besides, the promotion of the appellants, without the approval of the Public Service Commis--sion conferred no substantive rights in the eye of law, as rule 10 of the Punjab (Deputy Superintendents of Police) Services Rules, 1952, makes it plain that appointments by promotion for the rank of Inspectors shall be made by Government after consulting the Public Service Commission 'G' on the suitability of the selected person, but prior approval of the Public Service Commissions), which was necessary, was not obtained before pro--moting them in an officiating capacity.
23. We have also examined File No. 32-13/56-C, relating to the correspondence between the 1. G. Police and the Public Service Commission about the seeking of approval of the Commission for promotion of the three appellants and the remarks "too green" made about the two respondents.
24. These remarks, were made in 1. G. Police's letter dated 24-2-1956, when the case of Syed Ijaz Hussain Shah for promotion as D. S. P. was referred to the Commission at the instance of the Public Service Commission itself. It was in relation to Syed Ijaz Hussain Shah that it was said that the two respondents were yet too green to be considered for gazetted rank. This cannot benefit the three appellants whose case was not then under the consideration of the Commission. The Public Service Commission agreed to the promotion of Syed Ijaz Hussain Shah as well as two other Inspectors S. Jafar 1lussair Rizvi and Ch. Abdul Majid Bajwa on 23-4-1956. It was on the 30th June 1956, that the Commission itself required the 1. G. Police to refer to the Commission the cases of all those officiating D. S. Ps. Whose officiating promotion had not so far been approved by them. The I.
25. G. Police recommended seven names of M. Muhammad' Siddiq, M. Mohammad Sadiq, Khan Zeenat, Ullah Khan, Ch. Hassan Muhammad, S. Habib-ul-Hassan. Ch. Muhammad Yousaf and Ch. Sardar Ali and mentioned that by their promotion the two respondents and others would be superseded. Mr. Zia-ud-Din appellant having been promoted on 11-2-1957, his name along with five others was, for the first time forwarded by the 1. G. Police to the Public Service Commission on 5-4- 1957 for advice as to his and their suitability for promotion as D. S. P. In this letter it was- mentioned that approval of the promotion of the six officers would involve super session of 21 persons including the two respondents and Syed Maqbool Hussain appellant, who was not recommended for promotion, but the Commission approved him for promotion. In this letter it was mentioned that the reasons for super session of the two respondents and others were given in the office Memo. No. 1958/Guzdated 24-2-1958 in which the two respondents were described as yet too green to be considered for gazetted rank. It was, however, ignored that a whole year had elapsed since those comments were made and the two officers had almost completed five years service as Inspector and had become qualified for promotion, even if there was a convention of five years of service as Inspector for promotion as D. S. P. Therefore, it is clear to us that the I. G. Police's observations were of a mechanical nature without an application of his mind to the comparative merits of the service records of the two respondents and Mr. Zia--ud-Din Khan. It is also pertinent to note here that the appointing authority of the D. S. Ps., being the Government with the appro--val of the Public Service Commission, the I. G. Police was not the competent authority to make such comments which may amount to super session of the two respondents.
26. While the names of Zia-ud-Din Khan and others were under consideration with the Public Service Commission, the names of Ch. Muhammad Nawaz appellant as well as of Year Muhammad Khan were proposed by the 1. G. Police on 31-8-1957 for the approval of the Commission. Before the Public Service Commis--sion could approve the, names of Mr. Zia-ud-Din Khan and Ch. Muhammad Nawaz, the I. G. Police himself forwarded on 9-8-1958 other 11 names including the names of the two respon--dents and the two appellants Mr. Zia-ud-Din and Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Khan for approval of their promotion as D. S. P. The name of Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah appellant was mentioned among the persons, who would be superseded by the proposal. The I. G. Police himself placed the two respondents at serial Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. Zia-ud-Din at serial No. 5 and Muhammad Nawaz Khan at serial No. 7 in order of merit of approval. The Public Service Commission after seeking clarifica--tion as to the posts available for promotion approved on 9-9- 1959 the names of 13 persons against 11 vacancies in the following order of merit, (maintaining the order of merit proposed by I. G. Police, except in case of Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah): -
(1) Mr. Ghulam Qasim Khan
(2) Mr. Nisar Ahmad Chaudhry, Respondent No. 3
(3) Mr. Mahmood Hussain Ansari, Respondent No. 4
(4) Ch. Karamat Ullah
(5) Mr. Zia-ud-din Khan, Appellant
(6) Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah (")
(7) Mr. Ahmad Ullah
(8) Mr. Yar Muhammad Khan
(9) Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Appellant
(10) Mr. Ghulam Hussain Butt
(11) Mr. Ata Ullah Khan,
(12) Mr. Hamid Ullah Khan
(13) Mr. Muhammad YousafShah Thirteen persons were approved against 11 vacancies because the two persons at serial Nos. 4 sad 12 were on deputation to other Departments. It will be observed from the above order of merit that the two responder were placed senior to Mr. Zia-ud-Din, Syed Maqbool Hussain Shah and Mr. Mohammad Nawaz Khan, appellants. Thus the two respondents and not be said to have been superseded by the three appellants and although the appellants may have started officiating as D.S.P., earlier, their promotion remained subject to approvall of the Commission and when approved, the two respondents and hadi priority over them in the matter of promotion as D. S. P. lot only had they priority but being senior as Inspectors to the three appellants, they were entitled to rank senior as D. S. P.
27. If the advice of the Public Service Commission had then been accepted there would have been no need for Mr. Nisar Ahmad to make a representation to Govt. and of the necessity of having to fix presumptive dates of promotion and confirmation of the two respondents so as to give them their due seniority, but we find that the advice of the Public Service Commission was ignored and was not given effect to. The advice of the Commis--sion could not be overruled without obtaining the orders of the Governor to the contrary, which were not obtained as required by the rules of Business. The action, therefore, of not accepting the advice of the Commission was contrary to law and the I. G. Police exceeded his authority in disregarding the advice of the Public Service Commission and in not giving full effect to it.
28. The West Pakistan (Deputy Superintendents of Police) Service Rules, 1962, having come into force from 5th April 1962, the date of continuous appointment became the rule of seniority; through the 1952 rules were not superseded by the 1962 rules. The latter rules superseded the earlier rules to the extent of inconsistency and repugnancy, and therefore, under these rules the date of appointment determined seniority. The result that as the I. G. Police had notified the confirmation of Mr. Nisar Ahmad on 21-1-1968 w. e. f. 11-5-66 and of Mr. Mahmood Hussain Ansari from 21-5-66 and they had begun to officiate as D. S. Ps., from 1-11-1957, they had between junior as D. S. Ps., to the appellants who had started officiating earlier. It was for this reason that they began to be shown senior to the two appellants in the seniority lists published prior to May 1969. Mr. Nisat Ahmad, therefore, made a representation to the Government claiming seniority over. Hassan Muhammad Randhawa, who was next junior to him and others; pleading that his name should have been brought on the list earlier and he should have been promoted even earlier than the appellants. His representation was forwarded to the P. S. C., who advised that he and others similarly superseded should be assigned presumptive dates of promotion so as to restore their seniority, which loss of seniority was not justified on their comparative service records. The Provincial Govt. agreedwith the P. S. C., and issued a Gazette Notification No. 9283/Gaz. dated 10-5-1969, giving them presumptive dates of promotion and confirmation as follows :- No. 9283/Gaz. Assignment of presumptive Seniority.-The following D. S. Ps. of Region No. (iii) are given presumptive seniority as officiating and confirmed D. S. Ps. from the dates noted against their name from which their junior was promoted and confirmed in that rank:- This will not however, entitle them to arrears of pay and allowance for the period during which they did not perform the duties of the D. S. P.
29. The validity of this Notification as held above is not open to question and the Government who competent to fix their presumptive dates of promotion and confirmation. The appellants represented to Govt. against the above Notification, giving them presumptive dates and seniority above them but their representa--tion was rejected. Thus validity of this Notification is the basis of this appeal.
30. An argument was also raised that as Karamat Ullah Bajwa was approved of earlier by the P. S. C., he ranks senior to the two respondents, but as he is not a party to these proceedings, we would-not be justified in pronouncing on his seniority.
31. For the reasons stated above, we hold that it lay with in the competence of the Provincial Govt. to give presumptive date of promotion to the two respondents and as these dates of promotion are earlier than the date of promotion of the three appellants, we hold that they have been correctly shown as senior to the three appellants. In view of this matter, there is no force in the three appeals, which are hereby dismissed, and we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
32. S. No.Name and present place of postingPresumptive date of promotion as offg. D.S.P.Presumptive date of confirmation as D.S.P.
33. 1.Ch. Nisar Ahmed, D.S.P./Hqrs., Rawalpindi.16-5-56 2-7-64 2.Mr. Mahmood Hussain Ansari, D.S.P./Hqrs., Bahawalnagar16-5-56 2-7-1964