1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police in March 1948, and subsequently in the year 1959 he was appointed as officiating Inspector of Police. He was compulsorily retired on the 1st February 1965, under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1963, on the ground of his having completed 25 years of service. The petitioner became aggrieved by this action and he filed Writ Petition No. 107 of 1965.
2. During the pendency of this petition, however, the Inspector-General of Police, by his order dated the 28th March 1965 re-instated the petitioner and the writ petition having thus become infructuous was disposed of accordingly.
3. The petitioner was again compulsorily retired with effect from the 1st May 1968, by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police by his order dated the 30th April 1967 in pursuance of paragraph (a) of Clause 4 of Article 178 of the 1962-Constitution brought in by the Sixth Amendment of 1966.
4. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo, learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was not retired by the competent authority. According to his submission it was the Superintendent of Police who was the competent authority inasmuch as the substantive post of the petitioner was that of a Sub-Inspector of Police. Evidently this contention is untenable, for the petitioner was later appointed as officiating Sub---Inspector by the Additional Inspector-General of Police and it was, therefore, the Deputy Inspector. General of Police who was the competent authority to pass the order of retirement.
5. Mr. Hayat Junejo next contended that the petitioner was not heard in the appeal filed by him from the aforesaid order of retirement, and, therefore, the appeal was disposed of - in violation of the role of natural justice. This point was not taken before the High Court and we cannot permit the petitioner to raise it for the first time in this Court. There is no substance in the contention for if the petitioner had no right to continue in service under the Constitution no useful purpose could be served by having heard him at the appeal.
6. There is no substance in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.