1. S. A. MAHMOOD (CHAIRMAN).-In this appeal under sec--tion 4(1) of the West Pakistan Civil Services (Appellate Tribunals) Ordinance, 1969, Mr. Muhammad Sultan Ghani, Inspector of police, Special Branch, Punjab prays for the, grant of a declara--tion that he is senior to respondents 3 to 17 as officiating Inspector, anal that as a consequential relief, respondent No. 2 may be directed to amend the seniority list Annexure B, so as to place the appellant above respondents 3 to 17. He also prays for the grant of other consequential benefits. Though the relief claimed in the appeal is in respect of seniority in the rank of officiating Inspector; the case has been argued before us mainly in respect of his seniority as Sub-Inspector, and he claims seniority in this rank also over respondents 3 to 17.
2. The appellant is represented before us by Mr. Zaka-ur--Rehman, Advocate. TheGovernment of the Punjab and the Inspector-General of Police, respondents 1 and 2 are represented by Mr. A. G.
3. Humayyun, Government Pleader. Mr. Khalid Masood and Abdul Ghani Khan, respondents 3 and 11 are present in person. The remaining respondents are absent.
4. The appellant joined the Police Service as Assistant Sub --Inspector of Police on 15th March 1945, and was confirmed from the same date in 1943. He was promoted as officiating S. I. on 15th April 1950, and was confirmed w. e. f. 15-5-1955. He was promoted as temporary special grade Sub- Inspector on 29th May 1951 and confirmed as Substantive Special Grade S. I., w. e. f., 4-2-1963. He was promoted as officiating Inspector in January 1965 and has since been confirmed as Inspector w. e. f., 19th August 1970.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued firstly that the seniority of the appellant has been wrongly fixed in Annexure 13 to the petition. This seniority list was circulated by the Inspector- General of Police along with letter, dated 13th June 1970. It is a seniority-cum-'F' List: He has also urged that names in list 'F' should be recorded in seniority in accordance with rule 13.15 (iv) of the Police Rules, Volume 11.
6. The rule of seniority provided in para.12.2 (3) of the Police Rules, Vol. It is as follows:-- " 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 officers appointed direct on the same date being reckoned according to the age. Seniority shall, however, be finally settled by dates of confirmation, the seniority inter se of several officers confirmed on the same date being that allotted to theca on first appointment; provided that any officer, whose promo--tion or confirmation is delayed for reason of his being on deputation outside his range or district shall, on being promoted or confirmed, regain the seniority which he originally held vis-a-vis any officer promoted on confirmed before ring his deputation."
7. The appellant and respondents are Upper Subordinates, and their seniority as Upper Subordinates had to be determined finally by the date of confirmation. The appellant and respondents 3 to 17 being all confirmed Sub-Inspectors, the dates of con--firmation finally settle their inter se seniority as Sub-Inspectors. Taking the dates of confirmation from Appendix B, filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, we find that the appellants date of confirmation is 15-5-1955, whereas the dates of confirmation of Messrs Khalid Masud, Allah Ditta, Muhammad Afzal Bhatti, and Abdur Razzaq Khan, respondents 3 to 6 are earlier. These dates respectively are 14-3-1950, 4-9-1954, 21-3- 1953,16-1953. The dates of confirmation of respondents 7 to 17 being subsequent to the date of confirmation of the appellant, they must rank junior to the appellant in the seniority list of Sub- Inspectors.
8. Here we must make it clear that seniority to be determined under rule 12.2 (3) of the Police Rules, Vol. II is different and independent from the seniority in various promotion lists of Police Officers of different ranks including seniority in promotion list 'F', which is prepared under Police Rule 13.15, Vol. I1. List 'F' is described in its clause (ii) as promotion list; and it is not to be published. Therefore, List 'F' is a promotion list ofselected Sub-Inspectors, who are approved for promotion to the rank of Inspector and it may be altered from time to time. A seniority list is a ranking list of all Sub- Inspectors, which has to be published. We were surprised, therefore, to find that the Inspector- General of Police in his letter dated 13th June 1970, published list 'F' of Offg. Inspectors and Offg.
9. ProsecutingInspectors, which was contrary to Police Rule 13.15(ii).
10. We are informed that list 'F' is drawn up and maintained by the Inspector-General of Police of those Sub-Inspectors, who are considered suitable for and are approved for promotion, but he does not prepare a seniority list of other Sub-Inspectors, which is maintained range-wise. Be it as it may, it is crystal clear that list 'F' is to be prepared as a promotion list, and the names of the approved officers must be entered in it in accordance with clause (iv) of rule 13.15 of the Police Rules, which provides that seniority in list 'F' will be in accordance with the date of entry in that list and Sub- Inspectors admitted to list 'F' from the same date will be placed in that list in order according to their date of permanent promotion to selection grade, and it the dace of permanent promotion to selection grade is the same, in case of two more Sub-Inspectors admitted to list 'F' on one and same date then according to date of permanent promotion to time scale.
11. The order in which names in promotion list ---F--- haves to be entered having been provided in clause (iv) of Rule 13.15 of Rules, the Inspector-General of Police need only enter in it names in the order of seniority, as provided in clause (iv) along with the dates of admission to list ---F--- and of permanent promotion to selection grade (special grade) etc. This list must be maintained independently of the seniority list, which is envisaged by rule 12.2. (3) of the Police Rules, Vol. 1I and one should not be confused with the other.
12. We are told that in the rank o-- Inspector, the appellant and respondents 3 to 17 have been confirmed by now. There fore, their inter se seniority in this rank should be finally determined by the date of their confirmation in accordance withi the Police Rules.
13. In the light of what we have stated- above, we set aside the list attached to Annexure B, and direct the repreparation within three months of seniority lists of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors and list `F', each separately. The appeal succeeds to that extent. There will be no order as to costs.