The petitioners, Iftikhar Ahmad and Muhammad Ramzan, have moved this constitutional petition praying therein that the order of respondent No.l may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. On 6-5-1987 Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Assistant Advocate--General was heard and the impugned order passed by respondent No.l verbally, was suspended.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners are the police constables and are performing their duties in Police Line and Police Station Tibbi City, Lahore. They have been serving the Police Department for the last nine and eleven years, respectively. The petitioners appeared in B.I. Examination held in 1984 in which they were declared successful by respondent No.l. However, they failed in parade subject. Petitioner No.l failed in the parade subject only by three marks and under these circumstances, he went in appeal before the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore. This appeal was heard and allowed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and thereby he allowed three grace marks to petitioner No.l and in this way he was declared successful.
Similarly, petitioner No.2 passed in three papers but failed in parade subject as he had secured less marks to the extent of four marks. His appeal was also allowed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Lahore and thereby he gave him four grace marks. In this way both the petitioners were declared successful vide Annexures 'A' and 'B'. Thus, for all practical purposes both the petitioners were sucessful in B.I. Examination and consequently, they were selected for lower training course in Police Recruiting Training Centre, Sargodha. The petitioners joined the Training Centre, Sargodha, on 6-1-1987. On 4-5-1987, respondent No.l all of a sudden issued a verbal order on wireless to respondent No.2 directing him to send back the petitioners to Lahore forthwith. As stated earlier, the said verbal order has been challenged by the petitioner in this constitutional petition. Written statement has also been filed in the case by the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for all practical purposes, the petitioners were declared successful in the examination by allowing them grace marks by the competent authority and on the basis of the result of the examination, they were selected and were sent to undergo the course referred to above as warranted by the rules and instructions of the subject. Learned counsel stressed that once the petitioners were declared successful by the competent authority and were sent to undergo the course, leter on the respondent No.l was not at all competent to recall the petitioners while they were busy in the midst of their course at Sargodha.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General has taken the plea that there are instructions on the subject under which Deputy Inspector-General of Police was not competent at all to allow grace marks to the extent to which he has given the grace marks to the petitioners. However, the learned Additional Advocate-General has conceded that this is the fact that the petitioners were initially declared successful in their examination and they were selected for doing the police course. He also conceded that the petitioners after their selection were sent to Sargodha to undergo the said course. The learned Law Officer has submitted that the petitioners have completed their course and they are now back to Lahore and are performing their duties. The learned Law Officer has not challenged the legal proposition that once a right has been vested in a citizen that right cannot be withdrawn without hearing him.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very minutely. I am of the view that the petitioners participated in the examination and they were declared successful by the competent police authority. The admitted position 'In the case is that the petitioners, after passing the required examination, were actually selected for a course and they were sent to Sargodha for that purpose.. The respondent have admitted that the petitioners have completed their course successfully and a right has been accrued in, their favour by the acts of the respondents. They were declared successful candidates in the examination and similarly they have completed their police course. This being so, at this stage, the respondents are not at all competent to withdraw the right which now has been vested in the petitioners by lapse of time and on account of the actions taken by the respondents. Respondent No.l I not competent to withdraw the grace marks already allowed to th petitioners by his superior police officer namely Deputy Inspector--General of Police.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the verbal order passed by respondent No.l is declared to be without lawful authority and accordingly, the same is set aside leaving the parties to bead their own costs. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.