MALIK ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Mahboob Hasan, Inspector of Police 'has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 against the order passed by the Inspector- General of Police, Punjab, Lahore vide his order No. 13804/E-11, dated 29-8-1981 whereby he was informed that his representation for improved seniority in List `F' has been considered and rejected.
In this appeal he has impleaded the Inspector-General of Police, D. I.-G. Of Police, Lahore Range, Lahore, Mr. Khadim Hussain, L/147 DSP Highways, Office of D. L-G. Traffic, Lahore and Mr. Khalid Rashid L/80 (since retired) as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned order dated 29-8-1981 be set aside and respondent No. 1, I.-G. P. Be directed that the appellant be considered to have been admitted to List `F' w.e.f. 22-4-1973 and he should be promoted as Inspector of Police from the said date. He has also prayed that the Inspector-General of Police be directed to show the appellant in List `F' as well as in the Seniority List of Inspectors at appropriate place.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service in the Police Department on 29-2- 1964 as probationer A. S. I. By direct recruitment. He was confirmed in that capacity from the same date after he had successfully completed the period of probation and requisite Departmental Training and Examination. The appellant was enlisted in List `S' on 5-7-1967 and was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 3-5-1971. He was confirmed in the said post w.e f. 1-7-1971, by virtue of his good performance and record of service which has throughout been unblemished. In the first instance, the appellant was recommended for admission to List `F' in 1973 but his name was not included in the said list, while the contesting respondents Mr. Khadim Hussain and Khalid Rashid were included in the List `F' w.e.f. 22-4-1973. The appellant has also averred in the appeal that he was ignored for inclusion of his name in the List `F' due to the reason that he was quite a young man which was not one of the disqualifications for entry in list `F' according to rule 13.14 (1) of the Punjab Police Rules.
The appellant was again considered in the year 1975 for entry of his name in List `F' but was again ignored on the similar ground. He filed a representation which was accepted and he was enlisted to List ' F' w.e.f. 18-5-1976. However, he was not allowed the entry of his name in List `F' w.e.f. 22-4- 1973, the date which was originally claimed by him to be. Due to him and as such his grievances was not fully redressed and his representations were rejected vide order dated 29-8-1981. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. M. A. Riaz, Advocate on 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 the appellant was not allowed entry of his name in List `F' w.e.f. 22-4-1973 due ' to extraneous and illegal reasons which are not required under Police rule 13.14 (1). He has also submitted that being a young man is not a disqualification under the rule. He has also submitted that in this matter he has been discriminated because the persons younger in age than the appellant, mentioned by him in para. 3 of the appeal have been promoted while the appellant has been ignored in violation of the Rules.
He has also relied upon the judgment of this Tribunal in cases of Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Butt and Ashfaq Ahmad v. L-G. P. (Cases No. 128/614 of 1980 and 146/943 of 1981 to show that the action of the Inspector-General of Police ignoring the appellants in those cases being contrary to the rules, this Tribunal directed that they should be deemed to have been enlisted in List `F from the due date. It has also been argued that the Inspector-General of Police while passing the impugned order further discriminated him because two Officers namely Fazalur Rehman's M/25 and Shah Mahmud No. M/92 were left out due to erroneous view about their service record and eligibility and on the representations they were promoted retrospectively vide orders dated 7-1-1975 and 10-4-1979, respectively while the appellant has been denied this relief. On the other hand the learned District Attorney controverted these arguments and has submitted that the appellant was considered for promotion in List `F' on 15-12-1973 but was not found suitable. The competent authority in that decision regarding his fitness also observed that he possessed an average record, was young, his experi--hence as S. H. O. Was only 1-- years and he required more experience and grounding in Police work. He has also submitted that according to the provision of rule 13.14(1) the appellant was not eligible for entry of his name in List `F' or promotion in the rank of Inspector w.e.f. 22-4-1973 because he did not possess five years' service in the rank of Sub-Inspector on the said date. He has relied upon rule 13.14 (1) of the Police Rules, quoted by the appellant in para. 4 of his appeal. He has also argued that the cases of Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Butt and Ashfaq' Ahmed are distinguish--able from the case of the appellant and' their judgments are not applicable to the case of the appellant.
5. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record very carefully. The record shows that the appellant having been recommended was considered for promotion to List `F' on 15-12-1973 but was not admitted to the said list by the Addl.
Inspector-General of Police, Lahore. By ignoring him, he observed as follows :- "This officer was not interviewed as he was admitted in hospital.
S..I. Mehboob Hassan possesses an average record and is young. His experience as S. H. O. Is also limited (1'1 years). He needs experi--hence and grounding in Police work. To wait."
6. The perusal of the above quotation reveals that the appellant was ignored not only because he was young but also because he possesses an average record and his experience as S. H. O. Was also limited running over a period of 1-- years and he required more experience and grounding in Police work. The competent authority has determined the fitness of the applicant to be promoted to the higher grade/posts strictly in accordance with Police rule 13.14 which is reproduced hereunder for sake of ready reference: Promotions to and in the selection grades of Snb-Inspector.-(1) Promotion to the various selection grades of Sub-Inspectors shall be made by Superintendents of Police and the Assistant Superinten--dent, Government Railway Police, as vacancies in the sanctioned establishment of such appointments occur in accordance with the principle laid down in rule 13.1.
(2) No Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible for promotion to a selection grade unless he has at least eight years' approved service as an upper subordinate, of which at least five shall have been in the rank of Sub-Inspector, and unless he is thoroughly efficient and competent to hold charge of a police station of first class importance. No Sub-Inspector who has been punished by reduction, stoppage of increment, or forfeiture of approved service for increment, shall be eligible for promotion to a selection grade. Exceptions to this rule may be made only with the sanction of the Inspector-General in recognition of distinguished service and exemplary conduct.
(3) Sub-Inspectors promoted to the 4th selection grade shall be on probation for one year and may be reverted without formal depart--mental proceedings within the period of their probation if they fail to maintain an-exemplary standard of conduct and efficiency.'
Since the appellant has himself stated in the appeal that he was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 3- 5-1971 so he had not completed five years service in that rank which is a mandatory requirement of the rules referred to above and as such lie was not eligible for entry of his name in List `F' on 12-4- 1973 and has been legally and correctly ignored by the authority. However, when the appellant had completed five years service in the rank of Sub-Inspector on 3-5-1976 he was immediately thereafter admitted to List --F' w.e.f. 18-5-1976 thus no injustice has been caused to the appellant.
We do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has been discriminated in this matter, because the appellant has been ignored not only because of his young age but has also been ignored due to his less experience and other factors quoted above by us. We have also gone through the judgments of Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Butt and Asfaq Ahmed so relied upon by the appellant. We are afraid that these judgments are not at all attracted to the case of the appellant. In their cases the Inspector-General of Police had misinterpreted the rules and had ignored them while in the present case the Inspector-General of Police has correctly determined the fitness of the appellant for promotion in List `F' strictly in accordance with the Police rule 13.14.
7. In view of the above discussion we hold that there are no merits in his appeal which is liable to be dismissed. However, before parting with the judgment we may observe that even according to rule 13.14 of the Police Rules, an exception to it can be made by the Inspector-General of Police in recognition of distinguished service and exemplary conduct. Since the appellant was recommended for entry of his name in List ---F' w.e.f. 22-4-1973 so we recommend that the I.G.-P.
May reconsider the appellant for the purpose in accordance with the exception contained in the said Rules. In view of the above discussion the appeal is dismissed, with the observations as given in para. 7. There will be no order as to costs.