ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER).-Dilawar Ali, Sub-Inspector of Police, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974, wherein he has impleaded Inspector- General of Police, Punjab and Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, as res-- pondents.
3. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the appellant for the induction in lists F' on the basis of his seniority-cum-fitness.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is working as Sub---Inspector of Police. He has prayed that his name was recommended for entry in list `F' but was ignored on account of misunderstanding regarding adverse remarks against the appellant which were made in the year 1973. In fact, these adverse remarks had subsequently been expunged by the Deputy Inspector- General of Police ; but the fact of the expungement of the adverse remarks could not be so incorporated in the service record of the appellant. Thus, the complete and unblemished record of the appellant was not placed before the authorities concerned, with the result that the appellant was ignored when many juniors to the appellant were promoted to list `F'. The appellant lately submitted his representation dated 6-5-1979 to respondent No. 1. 'In this representation the appellant had agitated that due to the above-mentioned misunderstanding, his name was ignored from entry in list `F' and officers junior to him were promoted to list `F'. Hence this appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has excellent service record.
He was awarded as many as 54 commendation certificates with a good amount of cash rewards.
The appellant only earned adverse report during the year 1973 but the same was expunged by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore. Unfortunately these facts of the expungement of adverse remarks could not be incorporated in the service record of the appellant with the result that he was ignored. It has also been argued that the case of the appellant was duly recommended for admission to list `F' by the Superintendent of Police, Complaint Cell, and the appellant was thus fit for induction to list `F' on the basis of his extraordinary service record. The learned District Attorney controverted these arguments by saying that the appellant was not ignored on the basis of this misunderstanding regarding adverse remarks for the year 1973 ; but a Committee consisting of Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob, S.P. Sadar, Mr. Bashir Ahmad, S.P. Cantt : Mr. Safdar Hussain S.P. City. Was set up under the Chairmanship of the D.I.-G. To review the cases of all confirmed S.I's. For making recommendations for list `F' wherein the appellant's case was also considered. The Committee also heard him in person on 30-8-1980 and found that he had never held charge of a Police Station and his overall service record had been just average. Thus, the Committee did not recommend his case for List `F'. The learned District Attorney also argued that the appellant made a representation to Inspector-General of' Police, Lahore on 6-5-1979, which was still pending as stated by the appellant. He should have come to the Tribunal after expiry of 90 days of this representation and within 30 days after expiry of these 90 days. . He presented his appeal to the Tribunal on 30-4-1981 after lapse of nearly 2 years. Thus his appeal is time-barred and is .Not maintainable.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney anti have perused the record and given anxious thoughts to this appeal. The appellant was not recommended for induction in List `F' by the Committee set up under the Chairmanship of D.I.-G.
Police to review the cases of all confirmed S.Is. For making recommenda--tions for list `F'. The appellant was also heard in person on 30-8-1980. He was not considered fit for induction to List `F' as he had never held charge of any Police Station and his overall service record had been just average. Contention of the appellant that he was ignored due to his adverse entry for the year 1973 which though expunged; but the expunged remarks could not be so incorporated in his service record, is not correct and based on actual facts. It is established beyond any doubts that the appellant was duly considered for promotion to `F' list but he was found un-suitable. We also agree with the learned District Attorney that the appeal is time-barred and is not maintainable. It has been held in case of Haft Qadir Bakhsh v: Province of Sind and others (1982 S G M R 582) (C.P.S.L.A.)
No. K-58/79 decided on 3-12-1982, by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that there are two options left to a Civil Servant with regard to his representation viz. Either to wait for the final result of the representation or to come before the Tribunal within 30 days after the expiry of 90 days. In the present case appellant made a representation on 6-5-1979 to Inspector General of Police, Lahore, the appellant stated that his appeal had not A been decided by the I.-G. Police till the date of filing of this appeal on 30-4-1981 before us. He should have awaited for the final result of his appeal from I.-G. Police or could have come to the Punjab Service Tribunal within 30 days of the expiry of 90 days of his representation made on 6-5-1979. Thus, the appeal is not within time.
7. Moreover the law on this point has been settled that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere in any matters of promotion when it is found that the same has been refused on justified grounds by the authority, competent to promote his official.
8. In view of the above we do riot find any ground to accept the appeal of the appellant and.
Dismiss this appeal as being time-barred and also without any merits. The parties will bear their own costs.