' SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).--This appeal has been brought against the order dated 10-1-1989 made by the Inspector-General of Police, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (respondent No,1) by which the representation of the appellant was partly accepted to this extent that he should be placed at the top of Sub- nspectors to be brought on the next 'F' list and promoted if his service record is found satisfactory.
2. In fact, this appeal has arisen out of the order dated 1-10-1985 passed by the Inspector-General of Police vide Order Book No,162 by which Mohammad Latif Khan and Raja Muhammad Razaq Khan, Sub-Inspectors of Police were placed in the 'F' list and the name of the appellant was omitted from being placed in that list. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Inspector- General of Police and claims himself to be senior to Raja Mohammad Razaq Khan and Raja Mohammad Latif Sub-Inspectors of Police placed in the 'F' list for being promoted to the post of Inspector of Police. In support of his claim it is submitted by the appellant that he was promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 1-2-1974 and confirmed against that post on 1-2-1976 while Raja Mohammad Razaq respondent No,2 was promoted on 1-10-1974 and was confirmed as such on 1- 10-1976. The respondent No,3 Raja Muhammad Latif was originally serving as A.S.I. In the Ranger police and was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 1-2-1974 and confirmed on 1-2-1976. The appellant felt aggrieved by the fact that he ranked senior to respondents but the 'F' list was prepared ignoring his seniority and his spotless service record. He was not considered to be brought on the 'F' list. He submitted a representation to Inspector-General of Police for his name being included in the 'F' list but it was disposed of without touching the merits of the case although it was ordered that his name should be placed at the top of the list of Sub-Inspectors to be brought on the next 'F' list and promoted in case he held good record of service. The appellant was not satisfied with the aforesaid order of the Inspector-General of Police and has invoked the jurisdiction of this Tribunal for setting aside the same and granting him the promotion w,e,f, the date, the respondents Nos.2 and 3 have been allowed.
3. The objections taken by the respondents are that the appellant had no remedy by way of representation to avail of before the Inspector-General of Police and the period spent by him in pursuing his representation before the Inspector-General of Police is not condonable for the purposes of filing this appeal at this forum. Representation if permitted by law is generally made to the next higher authority or officer making the decision. In the instant case the Inspector-General of Police held no powers to review his own order and as such the representation brought before him by the appellant was not competent. The appellant was transferred and posted in Regular Police force from Reserve Police on 19-3-1978 and he had no merits to claim senior position against respondent No,2, who was already in the service of Regular Police. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 have been placed in the list as a result of their selection from among the Sub-Inspectors on the roll of Regular Police force and hence, the instant appeal before this forum was maintainable on that account.
4. We have examined the record and have also considered the arguments as were addressed at the bar by the learned counsel of each party. The maintenance of 'F' list by the Office of Inspector- General of Police is necessary for preserving the seniority of the upper subordinates for their future promotion to the next higher grade. The seniority of the Police Officers below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police is regulated by virtue of Rule 12.2 of the Police Rules, 1934 as are enforced in the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The relevant rule is reproduced below for guidance:- "Seniority, in the case of upper subordinates. Will be reckoned in the first instance from date of first appointment, Officers promoted from a lower rank being considered senior to persons appointed direct on the same date, and the seniority of the Officers appointed direct on the same date being reckoned according to age. Seniority shall, however, be finally settled by dates of confirmation, the seniority inter se of several officers confirmed on the same date being that allotted to them on first appointment: 'Provided that any Officer whose promotion or confirmation is delayed by reason of his being on deputation outside his range or district shall, on being promoted or confirmed, regain the seniority which he originally held vis-a-vis any Officers promoted or confirmed before him during his deputation.
' A plain reading of the above rule makes it clear that the 'F' list maintained under rule 13.15 of the Police Rules, in the office of Inspector-General of Police is in fact a seniority list of the Sub- Inspectors who are to be promoted to the next higher post on a future date in accordance with the positions allotted to them in the 'F' list. It is provided in the above rule of law that the inter se seniority between the members of the Police force falling in the same cadre on group of service shall be determined from the date of first appointment and finally settled by dates of their confirmation of their appointments on the posts held by them. In the instant case, the appellant was a member of the Branch of Reserve Police Force and held the rank of Sub-Inspector in that Branch of Police while the respondents Nos.2 and 3 Raja Muhammad Razaq and Raja Muhammad Latif belonged to Regular Police Force and the Ranger Police Force respectively. Now they are all posted in the Regular Police Force but it would be some what difficult to reckon their seniority from the dates of their first appointments as Sub-Inspector of Police while they were serving in different functional units of Police force. In that behalf our attention is invited to Order No,1/75, dated 15-11- 1975 made by the Inspector-General of Police and it is argued that the seniority of upper subordinates in the three branches of Police Force viz. Regular, Reserve and Ranger Police is to be maintained separately and in case of transfer of any member from Ranger and Reserve Police to the Regular Police, seniority is to be determined from the date of transfer of such Officer. We are afraid we cannot subscribed to this view because the Inspector-General of Police by himself cannot make an order laying down a specific rule of seniority for Police force without seeking previous permission of the Government. It is, no doubt, that under section 12 of Police Act, 1861 as enforced in Azad mJammu and Kashmir, the Inspector-General of Police is competent to make such orders and rules from time to time as he shall deem expedient relative to the organization, classification, and distribution of the Police force. But he can do so with the prior approval of the Government and there is nothing on the file to show that the order referred to was made by him with the previous permission of the Government. It shall be noted here that the order of Inspector General of Police does not have the character of Police Rules and if an order is made by him in derrogation of the existing provisions of law, it will be held in-effective for being without jurisdiction.
It will be conducive to the better administration of the Police force that the administrative orders are made by the Inspector General of Police in conformity with the provisions of the Police rules and when it is found essential by him to make some changes in the existing provisions of Police Rules, the rule may be changed or amended by him with the approval of Government. In the instant case, Rule No,12.2 of Police Rules, 1934 referred to shall be applicable and the inter se seniority between the appellant and respondents Nos.2 and 3 shall be determined and settled by dates of their confirmation of their appointments on the posts held by them irrespective of the fact that prior to their present posting in Regular Police Force, they were on the roll of Reserve or Ranger Police. It is on the file that the appellant was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 1-2-1974 while he was posted in the service of Reserve Police and was confirmed in the same force on 1-2-1976. The respondent No,2 was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 1-10-1974 while he was in the service of Regular Police Force and was also confirmed on that seat on 1-10-1976. Respondent No,3 was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 1-2-1974 while he was posted in the Ranger Police. He was confirmed against his post on 1-2-1976. The appellant was transferred from Reserve Police to Regular Police on 19-3-1978 and posted as Sub-Inspector in the same cadre which he held before in the service of Reserve Police. Raja Muhammad Latif, Sub-Inspector was, however, transferred at a late sage on 12-7-1981 from Ranger Police to Regular Police. We are aware of it that at the date of their confirmation the appellant and the respondent No,3 were not on the role of the Regular Police.
Under section 2 of the Police Act the entire Police establishment is to be deemed as one Police force and hence the confirmation of a Sub-Inspector of Police in a different Branch of Police force would not make any difference for reckoning his inter se seniority with those who are already confirmed as such in the Regular Police service. As per record of service of the appellant, we find it will established that at the relevant time, the appellant held a genuine case for being considered and brought on the 'F' list by the Inspector-General of Police but he was ignored.
5. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that without availing of the remedy available in law, the appellant was not entitled to seek any relief at this forum. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 Mr. Abdur Rashid Abbasi is of the opinion that under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1982, the appellant should have brought the representation against the impugned orders before the next higher authority who was in his case Minister in charge of Police Department. It is further submitted by him .That there being no specific provision in law for making a review petition before the Inspector General of Police, the appellant has committed an error in submitting his representation before the Inspector-General of Police who held no powers to admit that representation. The appellant has wasted his time in pursuing the remedy which was not at all available to him under the law and rules. The appeal is time-barred and is not maintainable. On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the appeal is within time and has been brought by the appellant at this forum after availing of the remedy of filing a review petition before the Inspector- General of Police and taking his decision thereon. We have considered the arguments and are of the opinion that under Rule 13.15(2) of the Police Rules, 1934 the Inspector-General of Police does have the revisional powers and the remedy in law has been properly availed of by the appellant. It will be of profit to reproduce the relevant rule hereunder for guidance:--
(3) When submitting recommendations for the entry of fresh names in list `F', Deputy Inspectors General and the Assistant inspector General, Government Railway police will at the same time submit specific recommendation (which need not be accompained 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 Inspectors-General and_the Assistant Inspector-General, Government Railway Police.
' It may be noted here that the 'F' list in the Police Department is actually the name of seniority list which is prepared for future promotion of Sub-Inspectors placed in that list. In fact it is a process which continues and no finality is attached to it till it is confirmed or modified by the Inspector- General of Police after hearing the aggrieved parties representing their cases before him to place them on the list and to remove the names of those who are juniors to them. Although there does not exist any specific provision providing a remedy by way of review petition to an aggrieved Police employee adversely affected by the entries of the 'F' list, yet the above rule of procedure has in an unambiguous words made it clear that the process of retention and removal of the name of the Officers already admitted to the 'F' list shall be revisable by the Inspector-General of Police and he shall be quite competent to amend or alter the entries of the list regarding the retention or exclusion of names in the list. We also find it relevant to quote here that under section 21 of the General Clauses Act as enforced in the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir where a power is conferred upon an Officer by any rule of law then that power also includes the power to exercise in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions to add, to amend, vary or rescind that order. The principle underlaid by the said section 21 may be briefly stated to be that the powers to create includes the powers to destroy and also the power to alter what is created. The power to rescind a notification or order is inherent in the power to issue the notification or order without any limitations or conditions. Under the provisions of sub-rule (3) of Police Rules 13.15 read with the above principle laid down by section 21 of General Clauses Act, this fact is well-established that 'F' list is always subject to review by the Inspector-General of Police on receipt of fresh recommendation from Deputy Inspector General of Police. Therefore, our analysis is that if the Inspector-General of Police has the power of reviewing an 'F' list on receipt of fresh material and recommendations from Deputy Inspector-General of Police then he is surely invested with the powers to admit a review petition which may be brought before him by an aggrieved police officer.
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold it that the Inspector-General of Police is duly invested with the powers to review the list at all times which is prepared and submitted to him by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and that such list attains its finality in respect of an aggrieved Police servant only after his grievance are heard and disposed of in a review petition by the Inspector- General of Police. In the instant case the remedy available in Police Rules stands duly availed of by the appellant and thus the period consumed in pursuing that remedy by way of a review petition is not wasted. The appellant has rightly chosen the course of action at this forum against the impugned order and his appeal is held to be quite within time.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that we feel inclined to allow this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, accepted and it is ordered that the entry of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 made in the impugned 'F' list which is manifestly repugnant to the senior position of the appellant shall be reviewed and reconsidered for allotting a proper place to the appellant for being promoted to the next higher post on merits. No order as to costs.