FAIZ KARIM (MEMBER).--The appellant, Khurshid Alam, Constable has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, 1974 against the impugned memo. Dated 10-11-1985 of the Inspector General of Police, Lahore addressed to D.I.G Police vide which the representation of the appellant regarding relaxation of the age for Lower School Course was rejected. The appellant has impleaded the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, DIG Police, Sargodha Range and S.P.,Mianwali as respondents Nos. l, 2 & 3 respectively.
2. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 10-11-1985 of the I.G.P. May be set aside and the appellant's age limit may be relaxed for undergoing Lower School Course.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the service as constable on 4-11-1972 and was retained on B-1 List vide endorsement dated 28-9-1978 of Superintendent of Police, Mianwali.
Subsequently the Superintendent of Police, Mianwali vide order dated 28-3-1979 revised the list of- --B-1'the ground some persons that according to the instructions laid down in Range Standing Order No.1/78 only 10 persons were to be retained in this List for- District Mianwali. Accordingly after revision of' the list tic retained the names of 10 persons from Sr. No.1 to 10 and deleted the names of the persons from Sr. No.11 to 24. Since the name of the appellant 'was at Sr.No.22, therefore, his name also stood deleted. Meanwhile it appears from the record of the appeal that the appellant was dismissed from the service and was reinstates by the Additional I.G. Police vide order dated 5-2-1983 after reduction of the punishment to censure. After reinstatement of the appellant his case was moved by the Superintendent of Police to the D.I.G. Police, Sargodha Range for relaxation of age. The I.G, Police, Punjab rejected the request for relaxation of the age vide his memo. No.1232/T-2 dated 1.2-4-1984. On the second reference dated 28-9-1985 of the D.I.G. Police, Sargodha Range on representation of the Appellant- -Khurshid Alarm his request for relaxation of the age limit was again rejected vide order dated 10- 11-1985 of I.G. Police while observing "that such request stood already rejected on 12-4-1984 and no further action was called for". Aggrieved against the said order the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The appellant also submitted art application without an affidavit for the condonation of the delay for filing a belated appeal.
4. Before the case could be admitted for regular hearing the learned counsel for the appellant was heard on point of the belated filing of the appeal as well as whether the 'tribunal had any jurisdiction to interfere with the discretion of tile I.G. Police regarding refusal of relaxation ,of upper age limit of the appellant for Lower School Course.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appeal was not time-barred because the appellant had made a second representation to the I.G. Police after refusal of the relaxation and furthermore the impugned orders were not communicated to the appellant promptly. As regards the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for entertaining the appeal against the refusal of the I.G.
Police for relaxation of the upper age limit the learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the I.
G. Police had not judiciously exercised his discretion and besides that this was a case of discrimination because in some cases he did relax the upper age limit of other constables. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following cases in support of his arguments:-
(i) 1983 SCMR 34.
(ii) 1986 SCMR 916 (i.e) PLD 1965 (S.C.) p.90
(iv) PLD 1964 (S.C.) p.64
6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have also perused the contents of the appeal and the documents attached with the appeal as well as the comments of the respondents. Without prejudice to the merits of the appeal so far as filing the time-barred appeal is concerned regardless of the facts that the undated application of the appellant at page 10 of the appeal is not supported with any affidavit, he has not given any proper ground for the condonation of the delay. Instead the appellant has mentioned that he forwarded his departmental appeal on 26-4-1984 which was decided on 10-11-1985, and was to be decided within 90 days. In second para of his application he has stated that he was required to file an appeal after 90 days of the final order of the I.G. Police which has expired and thus delay has occurred. This contention of the appellant inclines to be absurd because neither there is any stipulated or prescribed period for deciding any departmental appeal nor the appellant had to file the appeal within 90 days of the final order of the I.G. Police rather the appeal was to be filed within 30 days of the final order of the I.G. Police. As such the entire arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding condonation of the delay fall to the ground after clear admission of the appellant in his application that he was filing time-barred appeal., The complete picture is that the name of the appellant was first removed on 28-3-1979 from B-I List but no such relaxation was moved and his removal from service was much after i.e. On 29-5-1981. After reinstatement his request for relaxation of the age was rejected by the I.G. Police on 12-4-1984 which was duly communicated to him and he could not make a fresh representation to the I.G. Police as already observed by the I.G. Police vide his order dated 10-I1-1985. Lastly even after second time rejection of the I.G. Police he failed to submit any appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal within prescribed time.
7. As regards the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant for the discretion of the I.G.
Police for relaxation of the age of appellant he has not been able to show that the appellant could as of right claim for relaxation of the age or for that matter this Tribunal could pass any order setting aside the impugned orders of the I.G. Police. The judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is not helpful because it was merely for re- consideration of the case.
8. We are of the opinion that we cannot pass any directions unless we have any competency to interfere in any matter. If we have no powers to set aside any impugned order we cannot direct any authority to do any particular act. With due regards for the authorities and cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant they are also not applicable to the instant case because each and every case of relaxation has to be taken by the competent authority on his own merits. In case of the appellant it was already rejected and furthermore the appellant was not reinstated without any blemish because apart from any other adverse remarks on his service record he was given a penalty of censure before he was reinstated. The age for relaxation had also sufficiently categorised, after all there are limits for the relaxation and in cases of any or police physical fitness for groups of courses has to be taken into consideration. As such we have neither any jurisdiction to entertain this appeal nor there is any justification to interfere with the discretion of the I.G. Police.
9. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine for being time-barred as well as being not within jurisdiction of the Punjab Service Tribunal.
A.E./130/Sr.P Appeal dismissed.