1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---Mr. Abdullah Memon, a police Inspector has filed this appeal with prayer, the material part whereof reads s under:-- "after hearing the parties, set aside the order of respondent No, 1 bearing No, 2068/E.11, dated 11-2- 1988 and direct/order that the appellant's admission to List 'F' with effect from 21-5-1974 alongwith his batch-mates for the purposes of his promotion as Inspector and be accordingly promoted and given seniority over his juniors, namely the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in the cadre of Inspector of Police."
2. ' The factual background of the appellant's case is as follows. He was directly appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspector, Police, in Quetta/Kalat Range vide .P. Quetta's Order No, OB/27, dated 10-3- 1964. He was confirmed in that capacity w,e,f, 1-9-1967 as per D.L-G.P., Quetta/Kalat's No,6046- 49/13(ii)QK, aged 4-9-1967. The appellant's seniority as A.S.I. Vis-a-vis his batch mates was axed in accordance with the order of merit in the Intermediate School Course ide the D.I.-G.P's Order No, 16579-82/73(11)QK, dated 16-9-1967. He was romoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector by the Order No,17021-26/13(12)QK, ated 26-9-1967 of the D.I.-G.P., Quetta/Kalat Range.
3. ' Following the dissolution of the West Pakistan Province, the appellant as repatriated to Sindh, the province of his domicile and posted in Nawabshah istrict vide I.-G.P. Sindh's No, 12275-76/E-IV, dated 29-9-1972. At that time he as not confirmed as S.I.P. His name was also missing from the Combined seniority List of the confirmed/officiating Sub-Inspectors of Sukkur Range, ssued by the D.I.-G.P., of the said Range under his No, Estt: 687, dated 7-7-1973. Consequently his induction in list 'F' was delayed. Meanwhile his arch-mates of 1964, namely respondents Ghulam Muhammad Bhutto and Manzoor Ali Wagan and the incumbent of 1965, respondent Tajamal Hussain ere brought on the said list w,e,f, 21-5-1974. Similarly several others junior to he appellant were also admitted to the said list from the said date vide the .-G.P.'s No, 13082, dated 1-10-1974. It was only after the appellant made epresentation that he was confirmed as Sub-Inspector w,e,f, 30-7-1975 (vide D.I.-G.P. Sukkur's Order No: Estt:/7548-55/1975, dated 30-7-1975) and assigned seniority over M/s. Ghulam Muhammad and Tajamal Hussain. But despite that his name was not brought on the list `F with the result that his juniors Ghulam Muhammad Bhutto and Tajamal Hussain were promoted as Inspectors of Police vide the I.-G.P's order No: 12384-95/E-11, dated 18-9-1975. Once again the appellant represented on 20-10-1975 for finalization of his seniority vis-a-vis above two officers where upon his name was brought on the `F List w,e,f, 30-5-1978 and he was promoted as Inspector with immediate effect as per I.-G.P's Order No, 6467-68/E-11, dated 31-5-1978.
4. ' Thereafter seniority list of the confirmed Sub-Inspectors was issued vide D.I.-G.P, Sukkur's memo No, Estt:/2748-3341, dated 25-2-1979 wherein the appellant was shown junior to Tajamal Hussain and senior to Ghulam Muhammad Bhutto. Since objections were invited against the said list, the appellant submitted his representation on 10-3-1979. However, in the revised seniority list of the confirmed Sub-Inspectors issued by the D.I.-G.P., under his memo No:Estt/1/6357-6843/1980, dated 26-4-1980 the appellant was shown junior to both the above respondents. Thereafter the I.-G.P., Sindh by his Memo. No, 792-830/E.11, dated 19-1-1985 issued provisional seniority list of Inspectors wherein all the aforesaid three Inspectors were shown senior to the appellant. The said list was superseded by another provisional list of confirmed Inspectors from which the appellant's name was altogether missing. He submitted his objections against both the said lists and ultimately in February, 1988 the I.-G.P., gave the appellant personal hearing and passed his final order (impugned in this appeal), dated 11-2-1988 communicated to the appellant on 23-5-1988.
5. ' We heard the arguments of Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan on behalf of appellant and Mr. Salman Ansari, for the official respondents. No one turned up to submit arguments on behalf of the private respondents. We also carefully went through the relevant record.
6. ' It is an admitted position that the appellant was brought on list 'F.' and promoted to the post of Inspector w,e,f, 30-5-1978. On the other hand the private respondents Messrs Ghulam Muhammad Bhutto, Manzoor Ali Wagan, Muhammad Hassan Jamali, Qamardin Shaikh and Tajamal Hussain, who according to the appellant were junior to him were not only inducted in the said list from the earlier date but were also promoted as Inspectors much before his promotion to that post.
7. Accordingly the relief sought by the appellant in this case is that his induction in List 'F' and consequent promotion to the post of Inspector be ordered retrospectively w,e,f, 21-5-1974, when his batch mates and his other juniors were brought on the said list and promoted as Inspectors and further that his seniority in the cadre of Inspectors may be fixed afresh in the light of such orders.
8. Before we proceed to examine the mechanism by which the appellant was to be brought on List 'F' we have to ascertain the genuineness of his claim that he was senior to all the above private respondents in the cadre of. Sub-Inspectors. Admittedly the appellant started his service career in Police Department with direct appointment as A.S.I., in the Quetta/Kalat Range. His such appointment was made in 1964 when there was only one Province of West Pakistan. As is clear from the W/M dated 16-9-1967 of the D.I.-G.P., Quetta, the appellant was assigned seniority in the cadre of A.S.Is in accordance with the order of merit in the Intermediate School Course. Admittedly he was still serving in Quetta/Kalat Range when he was promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector. He was yet to be confirmed in that post when the break-up of One-Unit took place and he was repatriated to Sindh, his home province. Normally on his induction in Sub-Inspector's cadre of different Range, he had to be placed at the bottom of the list of Sub-Inspectors of the said Range (Sukkur Range).
9. Obviously due to this reason, the appellant's name was conspicuously missing from the seniority list of confirmed/officiating Sub-Inspectors issued by D.I.-G.P., Sukkur Range on 27-7-1983. It was after the appellant's representation against the omission of his name from the above seniority list that the I.-G.P., Sindh, on recommendations of the D.I.-G.P., Sukkur, passed order dated 12-10-1974, protecting the appellant's seniority in the Sub-Inspectors cadre of Sukkur Range. The relevant portion of his order reads as under:-- "2. The seniority of the S.I. Should be fixed on the basis of merit in the Intermediate School Course Examination held in 1965, as his transfer from Baluchistan Police to Sindh Police was in public interest."
10. ' Following the above order, the appellant was confirmed as sub-Inspector w,e,f, 30-7-1975 and was assigned seniority over M/s. Ghulam Muhammad Bhutto and Tajamul Hussain, and the appellant's name was placed at S.No, 18, and the names of above two respondents appeared at S.No, 19 and S.No, 20 respectively in the D.I.-G.P's confirmation order dated 30-7-1975. As stated earlier in this judgment, pending the final determination of appellant's seniority vis-a-vis the aforesaid respondents in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors the said respondents alongwith several other Sub- Inspectors junior to the appellant were brought on the list 'F' w,e,f, 21-5-1974. Not only this, but even after the appellant's seniority in the Sub-Inspectors' cadre was finally settled, his name was not included in the list 'F'. Consequently M/s. Ghulam Muhammad Bhutto and Tajamul Hussain whose names were already borne on that list, were promoted as Police Inspectors by the I.-G.P's order dated 18-9-1975. Of course on subsequent representation the appellant's name was ultimately brought on the list 'F' w,e,f, 30-5-1978 and he was also promoted as Inspector with immediate effect by the I.-G.P's Order dated 31-5-1978.
11. The material point that falls for our determination is whether the inclusion of the appellant's name in the list 'F' and his consequent promotion to the post of Inspector could be ordered retrospectively from the same date on which his juniors were included in the said list and promoted to the Inspector's rank. It is not disputed that the pre-requisite condition for Sub-Inspector's promotion to the post of Inspector is that his name is borne on the list 'F'. When the appellant's aforesaid juniors were promoted as Inspectors their names had already been brought on the list 'F'. Until then the appellant's name had not appeared in that list. His name was brought on the said list for the first time on 30-5-1978. Therefore the precise point for determination is if this date could be advanced to make it coincide with the date of the inclusion of the respondents' names in the list 'F.
12. ' At this stage it may be pertinent to refer to rule 13.15 Police Rules, which lays down the comprehensive mechanism to be followed in bringing the names of Sub-Inspectors on the list 'F.
13. The relevant portions of the above rule read as under:- "13.15. (1) Recommendations on behalf of Sergeants and Sub-Inspectors considered fit for promotion to the rank of Inspector shall be submitted with their annual confidential reports on the 15th January each year to Deputy Inspectors-General by Superintendents of Police in form 13.15
(1) .The Deputy Inspector-General shall decide, after seeing the officers recommended, and in consideration of their records, and his own knowledge of them, whether to endorse the recommendations of Superintendents of Police and forward them to the Inspector- GeneralDeputy Inspector-General shall finally submit recommendations to the Inspector-General as soon they are satisfied as to the fitness of officers recommended but in no case later than October each year.
(2) Such of the officers recommended as the Inspector-General may consider suitable shall be admitted to promotion list 'F' (From 13.15 (2)) which will however, not be published. Deputy Inspectors-General shall be informed, and shall in turn inform the Superintendent concerned of the names of those who have been admitted to the ListWhen submitting recommendations for the entry of fresh names in List `F' Deputy Inspector-General..Will at the same time submit specific recommendations (which need not be accompanied by detailed confidential reports) as to the retention or removal of officers already admitted to the list. On receipt of these recommendations, the Inspector-General will review the Provincial List, and pass orders regarding the retention or exclusion of names, at the same time communicating his decision to the Deputy Inspector-General and the Assistant Inspector..
(3) Seniority in list 'F' will be in accordance with the date of entry in that list. Sub-Inspectors admitted to list 'F' on the same date will be placed in that list in order according to their date of permanent promotion to selection grade, and if the date of permanent promotion to selection grade is the same in the case of two or more Sub-Inspectors admitted to list 7 on one and the same date then according to date of permanent promotion to the time-scale."
14. It would be noticed that the process of preparation of the list 'F' is not automatic inasmuch as that while including names of Sub-Inspectors in the list, the order of inter se seniority reflected in their cadre is to be mechanically followed. In other words the list 'F' is not just the same as seniority list of Sub-Inspectors. Had it been so, there would have been absolutely no justification for such duplication. Unlike seniority list, the 'F' list bears only the names of those Sub-Inspectors who are found suitable for promotion to the post of Inspector. As has been elaborated in the aforesaid rule, the suitability for promotion and consequent inclusion in the list 'F' of any Sub-Inspector comes under consideration at three levels. To begin with, the S.P. Concerned who initiates the A.C.R. Has to recommend if the incumbent is suitable for promotion. Then comes D.I.-G.P., who after seeing the officer and considering his record and his own knowledge about him, has to make up his mind whether to endorse the S.P.'s recommendations and forward them to the I.-G.P. Finally it is the I.-G.P.
15. Who takes a decision as to inclusion of the name of the recommended in the 'F' list. While taking such decision he too has to exercise his own judgment besides considering the recommendations of the lower authorities.
16. ' Judging the appellant's case in the light of the requirement of the above rule, his inclusion in list 'F' obviously depended upon his suitability for promotion to the Inspector's post, to be decided by aforementioned three authorities. The question would arise if this Tribunal could substitute its own judgment as regards the appellant's suitability for promotion to the post of Inspector. The straight answer to this question would be in the negative. This Tribunal is barred from going into the question of suitability of any person for appointment or promotion to any post. Proviso (b) to section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 may be invoked to support the above viewpoint.
17. Thus having no jurisdiction to determine the suitability of any person for promotion to higher post, we are of the view that the Service Tribunal is not competent to direct the inclusion of appellant's name in 'F' list, much less from retrospective date. Even otherwise as required by above rule the list 'F' cannot be made public. As such it is immune from scrutiny and criticism except by the authorities dealing with it. After settling the dispute of the appellant's seniority in the Sub- Inspectors cadre, it was for the authorities concerned to have sorted out the question of his seniority for promotion and his consequent induction in list 'F'.
18. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that we cannot grant relief sought by the appellant.
19. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However before parting with the case we would like to observe that certainly the appellant's difficulty arose after his settled seniority and confirmation vis-a-vis his batch-mates, in Sub-Inspectors' cadre was tampered with. Instead of changing the date of their inclusion in list 'F' to tally with their confirmation date i,e, 30-7-1975, the confirmation date of at least two respondents Ghulam Muhammad and Tajamul Hussain was ante-dated from 30-7-1975 to 21-5-1974. As is clear from the D.I.-G.P., Sukkur's letter No, E.1/4796, dated 25-2-1987 addressed to the I.-G.P. There was absolutely no basis for antedating their confirmation date. According to the said letter, the strenous efforts were made to locate the relevant record in support of the change of confirmation date but no trace of evidence was forth- coming in this regard. Moreover the D.I.-G.P., recommended the appellant's claim for seniority as genuine one in the said letter. Keeping the above D.I.-G.P's letter in view, it is only reasonable to expect from the authorities concerned that they would ensure fair play and justice to the parties by making necessary alterations if any in the dates of their confirmation as well as in the dates of their inclusion in 'F' list in the light of firm and reliable material in their possession.