' The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has called into question the order dated 12-6- 1990 of the respondent.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was due for confirmation as Sub-Inspector with effect from 1-1-1976 and to promotion to list 'F' with effect from 1-7-1980 on the basis of his seniority but he was not being allowed. The petitioner, therefore, after making representation invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through Writ Petition No, 653/89. The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the I.-G. And D.I.-G. Shall finalise the petitioner's case within one month. Thereafter respondent vide order dated 12-2-1990 promoted the petitioner as Inspector from 3-11-1986. The grievance of the petitioner is now that soon thereafter through the impugned order the whole process was reversed. This way the petitioner was constrained to file the present Constitutional petition. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notice was issued to the respondent, who has appeared and contested the petition.
3. The learned counsel in support of the petition has argued that the impugned order amounts to re-determination or review of the fitness of the petitioner on the same record and material, which was before the respondent when the petitioner was promoted. This is not possible under law. In this behalf, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases of Manzoor Ahmad v. Ejaz Ahmad Bhatti and others 1985 SCMR 1797 and Ghulam Hussain v. Province of Punjab 1989 PLC (C.S.) 487.
It is added that after the promotion order was acted upon there was nothing for the respondent to fall back and he has lost right to repent. It is submitted that the order is also in violation of the direction of this Court.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General has argued that it is a case of reversion and the order has been passed after show-cause notice, therefore, there is nothing wrong with the same.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that it is clear from para. 2 of the show-cause notice Annexure `E' and para. 3 of the impugned order Annexure `.1' that the order is re-determination of the fitness of the petitioner and reversion is just consequential of this exercise. The learned counsel in support of his contention has referred to the cases of Kabir Ahmad Khan v. Government of Punjab 1990 SCMR 1417; Mushtaq Hussain Shah v. Director, Food, Lahore Region and others 1990 SCMR 1492; Muhammad Sharif and 6 others v. The Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department and 2 others 1981 PLC (C.S.) 562 and Mazhar Hussain v. Province of Punjab PLD 1985 Lah.
394.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as precedent cases. It is clear from the show-cause notice and the impugned order that it was just the re-determination of fitness of the petitioner and it was not action under E&D Rules. The respondent allowed the promotion to the petitioner after scanning his whole record while passing the order dated 12-2-1990, therefore, he was not well-advised to reopen the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly referred to the judgment of Manzoor Ahmad and case of Ghulam Hussain. These cases are applicable with full force especially the case of Ghulam Hussain. The respondent has no power under law to reverse the previous order and it had lost locus poenitentiae, therefore, the order is bad in law.
7. The upshot of this discussion is that this writ petition is allowed with costs and impugned order dated 12-6-1990 is declared illegal and without jurisdiction.