' S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-- Syed Mumtaz Hussain has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Lahore, in which he has impleaded the Punjab Province through Home Secretary to Government of Punjab, Lahore, and the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, as respondents. This appeal was filed on 1-2-1981. As basically the appellant had claimed seniority over a number of persons therefore, vide our order, dated 3-3-1982, he was allowed to file amended appeal. In pursuance of the said order, an amended appeal was filed by the appellant in which he impleaded 174 persons as respondents over whom he sought seniority.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he should be deputed for training in the Lower School Course by withdrawing one candidate from the batch recently sent for training and to fix seniority of the appellant at par with his colleagues w,e,f, the year 1971-72 as per instructions of the Government, in further ranks at proper places, according to the service rules.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Constable w,e,f, 16-8-1969 and was deputed for duty in East Pakistan and was made POW in India. He was released in 1974. He being POW was so exempted from qualifying List 'A' examination. After the release of POWs., B-I examination was held in December, 1975. The appellant did not appear in the said examination, but appeared in the B-I examination held in the year 1977 and was admitted to list BI on 2-11-1977. The appellant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the Inspector-General of Police Punjab, Lahore through proper channel on 7-10-1980 to redress his grievances by sending him for Lower School Course and fixing his seniority at the proper place. As no reply was received by him, he reminded the said authority vide his application, dated 7-1-1981 but still no response was received. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the instructions issued by the Inspector-General of Police, dated 7-6-1973, in which it has been stated that no Police Officer deputed to East Pakistan shall be allowed to suffer in terms of service prospects and seniority, on account of his absence from parent unit for duty in East Pakistan. It has been argued that in the absence of appellant while in East Pakistan, his colleagues took examination 1971-72 for list 'A' and 'B-I' and passed the tests.
They got one promotion but the appellant was unable to available this opportunity being prisoner- of-war. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, had he been in Punjab he would have surely got the chance to avail this opportunity. It has been submitted that on return from India (after release from prison) the appellant, took examination for List 'B'-1' in 1977 and passed the same and his name was entered in the List B-1. Since then 6 - 7 Nos, batches have been sent till today for the Lower School Course but the appellant has been ignored for the reasons not known to him.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that no injustice has been done in case of the appellant because selection for Lower School Course has always been made in accordance with the provisions as laid down in rule 13.10(1) of the Police Rules (Revised). According to such Rules learned District Attorney has submitted that the constables who are going to become overage and had only one chance for the said purpose, were always given priority. It was also disclosed that the name of the appellant stood at serial No, 129 and now was under going for the prescribed Lower School Course. Learned District Attorney has also taken exception to the amended appeal as according to him, the appellant has amended the appeal as a whole for which there was no justification, as such like wholesale amendments are prohibited by the Cr.P.C.
He has stoutly defended the treatment meted out to the appellant, which according to him was just as provided under the Rules.
7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so advanced by the parties and have also taken into consideration the rule 13.10(1) of the Police Rules (revised) and find that according to this Rule the Constables who are going to become overage and have got the last chance are given the priority and the rest of the selection is made from list maintained in order of seniority according to admission to List B-1. We have examined the list and find that the name of the appellant stands at serial No, 129 and he is now undergoing the prescribed Lower School Course. While examining the facts of the case as stated by the appellant we find that his claim that the selection was not done according to the seniority, was not correct. According to the service record, he was deputed to East Pakistan on 1-6-1971 and repatriated to Pakistan on 16-1-1974, but he did not avail the chance in 1975 and appeared in the examination in 1977 and was admitted in List B-1 on 2-11-1977. As the date of birth of the appellant is 7-10-1947, therefore, after deducting period so spent out of Punjab, he can be deputed for Lower School Training Course till 7-4-1983. In this manner he had more chances left for his being deputed to Lower School Course, and the respondents were fully justified to give chance to those who were going to become overage as envisaged in rule 13.10(1) of the Police Rules. This being the situation, we do not find any merit in the claim of the appellant that he has been discriminated in any manner, when we find that he was exempted from qualifying List 'A' examination as being POW. If the appellant decided not to sit in 1975 examination for the reasons best known to himself, no act of injustice has been committed by the respondents in counting his admission to List B-1 from 2-11-1977, as this can possibly be the date for passing the examination.
8. In view of the above analysis of the case of the appellant, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.