' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).----This appeal has been brought by Muhammad Bashir Khan Assistant Sub-Inspector of District Police Mirpur to impugn the orders of Inspector-General of Police made by him vide Order Book Nos.219, 223 and 17546 dated 4-12-1985, 5-12-1985 and 23-11-1988 respectively with regard to the promotion of the respondents Nos.2 to 19.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant was employed Head Constable in the Police Force and had qualified himself with all he necessary qualifications for being placed on the 'D' list.
Accordingly his name was placed at serial No,7 of the 'D' list by the Inspector-General of Police (respondent No,1) and the respondents Nos.2 to 10 were shown junior to him in that list but were promoted vide Order Book No,219, dated 4-12-1985 ignoring the seniority and merits of the appellant. The respondents Nos.11 to 19 who were also junior to him were also promoted vide Order Book No,223, dated 5-12-1985. The appellant brought a representation before Inspector-General of Police against the aforesaid promotion orders of the respondents. On 21-4-1986 he was informed that his promotion would be considered at the next occasion while taking the cases of Head Constables deserving promotion to the next higher grade and ultimately he was promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 2-3-1987. It is submitted by the appellant that he was under the impression to be promoted with retrospective effect i,e, from 1-12-1985 but instead of that he was promoted from 2-3-1987. Thereupon, he made another representation to respondent No,1 for granting him retrospective promotion w,e,f, 1-12-1985 in accordance with his seniority and to allow him all the back benefits from the said date. But through a letter dated 23-11-1988 which was conveyed to him on 7-12-1988, he was informed that his application for determination of seniority, and granting him retrospective promotion was consigned to record for being time-barred. It is for this reason that the appellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 of Service Tribunal Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to be as the Act).
3. It is prayed by the appellant that the impugned orders may be set aside and the appellant may be promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector with retrospective effect dating back to 4-12- 1985.
4. The appeal was admitted by a short order of this Tribunal and the respondents were asked to file their written objections, if any. But despite the fact that some of the respondents were present through their counsel they failed to defend themselves in this appeal and ultimately this Tribunal had to make ex parte orders against them also.
5. We have heard the arguments as were addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant and have also examined the record placed alongwith the appeal. According to the appellant, the list of the Head Constables Annexure (A) which is stated to be the 'D' list is not so and it is in fact a list of the Head Constables whose record of service was summoned for being examined in the Central Police Office. There is no record to the effect that the appellant was placed on the 'D' list. In this list the date of entry in service of Head Constables is not mentioned and presently it is difficult to ascertain whether the appellant was ever placed at serial No,7 in list 'D' maintained under rule 13.9 of the Police Rules, 1934 as are enforced in the Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir, because of his early entry in service and that the respondents were placed juni to him.
6. There is no denying the fact that promotion of respondents was ordere w,e,f, 1-12-1985 vide Order Book Nos.219 and 233, dated 4-12-1985 and 5-12-198 respectively and the representation brought by the appellant against their orders of promotion was not successful although the appellant was also promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector at a later stage on 2-3-1987. Now the claim of the appellant is that according to the 'D' list he was due to be promoted w,e,f, 1-12-1985 or 4-12-1985 but under the impugned orders he was not considered for promotion and his rights were adversely affected. The appellant was required to bring an appeal before this Tribunal within stipulated period after availing of the departmental remedy. But he kept silent till 2-3-1987 when he was also promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector. Now he claims retrospective promotion w,e,f, 4-12-1985. It is for the promoting authority to determine the suitability of a person for promotion after an assessm ent of all relevant considerations such as seniority, competence, rectitude and antecedent official record. In fact, the basic or governing consideration in all promotions is what may be shortly described as merit or suitability, seniority is in substance one of the elements in the assessm ent of merit. Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right and there is nothing on the file to show that the appellant held senior position as against the respondents so as to entitle him promotion with retrospective effect.
7. Before parting with this judgment, we would like to point out that the appellant had no remedy by way of representation before the Inspector-General of Police because the impugned orders were made by the Inspector-General of Police himself and under section 21 of the Civil Servants Act, 1976 read with rule 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1982, the appellant should have preferred an appeal against the impugned orders before next higher authority. The time thus spent by the appellant in pursuing the representation before the Inspector-General of Police is wasted and not condonable even if there had been any application for that. It is well- established that the appellant has not availed of the remedy provided in law before invoking the jurisdiction of this Tribunal under section 4 the Act. The result is that the appeal is time-barred also.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal fails on merits and it is barred by limitation also. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.