1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-By this appeal under sec--tion 4 of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969, Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Kayani, Prosecuting Inspector of Police, claims the following reliefs:
(i) That his seniority may be fixed from the date of his passing P. S. Is' Examination, with credit: namely 31st March 1959, as required by Police Rule 19.28(4) and not according to seniority in the selection grade as indicated in Police Rules 13.14 and 14.15(4), which are not applicable to P. S. Is.
(ii) That the order of transfer of his lien to D. I. Khan Range made in December 1955, may be held to be ultra vires of the Establishment of West Pakistan Act, 1955 and he tray be declared to have continued to remain on the role of Rawalpindi Range w. e. f. 1-3-54 and that he is entitled to draw all the benefits, which would have accrued to him had he not beet transferred to D. I. Khan. He further prays that he be deemed to have beengranted selection grade along with Khan Zaman Khan, P. I. of Rawalpindi Range.
(iii) That the orders of his promotion to the rank of Prosecuting Inspector and the date on which his name was brought on the `F' list be considered to be w. e. f. 22-5-1956 and in consequence he be deemed to have been substantively promoted w. e. f. 31-3-1959, when he passed the departmental examination under Police Rule 19.28(4).
2. The appellant has argued his own case. The I.-G. Police is represented by hit. A. G. Humayyun, Government Pleader. Out of the respondents 2 to 31, respondents 8, 16 and 29 were only present.
3. The others were absent in spite of service.
4. The appellant was born on 1-10-190 and was appointed on 3 years probation as Prosecuting Sub- Inspector w. e. f. 1-3-1954 and so was Khan Zaman Khan, who was born on 6th October 1929. While the appellant was posted to Jhelum District, Khan Zaman Khan was posted to Sargodha District, both in Rawalpindi Range.
5. On integration, Mianwali District became a part of D.
1. Khan Range and options were invited from those serving in the Mianwah District whether-they had any objection to serving in Mianwali District? On 22nd August 1955, the appellant declared his option against serving in Mianwali District.
6. By notification of 17th April 1956, his lien was retransferred back to Rawalpindi Range, and in one of the Punjab vacancies, he was promoted as Officiating Prosecuting Inspector on 30th May 1956, and was posted at Sahiwal. He was granted selection grade w. e. f. 1-1-1966 and his name was brought on `F' List from 22nd November 1966. As he has been confirmed as Prosecuting Inspector from 11th November 1968, lie ranks at number 55 of the seniority list, corrected up to 31st December 1969 and published on 13th June 1970. In this seniority list, he is shown junior to respondents 2 to 31, who, all (except Mr. Azim-ud-Din and Muhammad Said Khan) began to officiate as Inspectors later than the appellant did. The reason stated for his being so low in seniority in this list is that having been granted selection grade later than the respondents, his name came on the `F' List later. His date of confirmation is 11-2-1969. He was confirmed after he had served for about 13 years as Officiating P. I.
7. His main grievance is that the question of grant selection grade in the Sargodha Range was deferred and w not decided for 6 years from 1960 to 1966, since the creation ofSargodha Range in 1960. It may be mention--ed that whet his lien was retransferred to Rawalpindi Range, Sargodha District was within this Range. The appellant was transferred to Sargodha Range on its creation in 1960. His lien was again transferred to Sargodha Range in 1960. The appellants second grievance is that the vacancies occurring in the Sargodha Range should have been filled up from the dates of occurrence of those vacancies as provided in Police Rule 13.14(1). But rule 13.14(1), merely provides in its sub-rule (1) that promotion to the special grade of S. Is. shall be made by S. P. on the basis of seniority subject to fitness. This rule has beer amended in 1960. Therefore, it is not the requirement of the Police rule that vacancies shall be filled from the date of their occurrence.
8. We are unable to uphold the contention that seniority of the appellant has to be fixed under Police Rule 19.28(4) from the date of passing the examination of P. S. Is. with credit. The seniority must be determined by rut- 12.2(3), which provides as under:-- 12.2(3): "All appointments of enrolled Police Officers are on probation according to the rules under his Chapter applicable to each rank.
9. Seniority in the case of Upper-Subordinates will be reckoned in the first instance from the date of first appointment, officers promoted from a lower rank being considered senior to persons appointed direct on the same date, and the seniority of the officers appointed direct on the sane date being reckoned according to age. Seniority shall, however, be finally settled by dates of confirmation. The seniority inter se of the several officers confirmed on the same date being that allotted to them on first appointment."
10. Therefore, the date of confirmation determines seniority in the various grades. The seniority in dispute in the present case c being in the rank of Prosecuting Inspector, the ranking as shown in the list is not shown to be incorrect, in case the dates of confirmation are to remain as they are.
11. The appellant desired us to send for five witnesses not at his expenses, but at Government's expense. We are not willing to accede to that request as no useful purpose would be served by calling those witnesses and we do not consider it necessary in the interest of justice. He has also required the production of record pertaining to promotion of Prosecuting Sub-Inspectors from 1954 onwards, but the persons, whose promotion records are required, are not specified in the application. The request is too vague to merit any serious attention. We are not, therefore, inclined to summon any record. Mr. A. G. Humayyun learned Government Pleader informs us that promotion record and record relating to grant of selection grade of Rawalpindi Range is not available. As to the grant of selection grade of Sargodha Range, it has been conceded by Mr. Humayyun that the case of grant of selection grade was taken up in Sargodha Range in June 1963 and was finalised in 1966. This in itself shows that it took six years in Sargodha Range to finalise the case of grant of selection grade.
12. The question, which requires serious consideration in this case is whether in the above circumstances, the persons who were due selection grade suffered or not because there was delay on the part of the public authorities to decide the case of selection grade for six years. There seems to be justification in the, grievance of the appellant in not being confirmed until after about 13 years as Prosecuting. Inspector and there are about 30 officers who have superseded him, This supersession appears to have happened because of grant of selection grade earlier to the respondents and belated date of confirmation assigned to the appellant. We are not in possession of the officers' data to determine, whether this supersession was justified by the comparative records of the appellant and the respondents. We may mention that as all the respondents do not belong to Sargodha Range, the appellant is not entitled to object to the earlier confirmation of those who belong to other ranges. We, therefore, consider that the case of the appellant needs con--sideration in two respects: namely, whether the grant of selection grade and the date of confirmation should not be earlier than the dates from which he has been granted selection grade and confirmed as P. I. The competent authority may thus re-examine the case of officers of the Sargodha Range.
13. We, therefore, directing as above, dispose of this appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.