IRASHAD HASAN KHAN J.~ This petition under Article 199 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the order dated 2.6.1990 passed by the Additional Inspector General or Police, Punjab, Lahore, whereby respondent No.3 has been promoted to the rank of Inspector with effect from 1.4.1982.
2. The relevant facts are that there have been a number of representations in connection with the seniority among expert and non-experts of the Finger Print Bureau. The Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of the 'material available before it, recommended the petitioner for promotion as Inspector on the ground that he was a highly qualified person as an expert in the finger print but respondent No.3 was not recommended for promotion on the ground that his record was poor and was twice retired compulsorily. Respondent No.3 made a representation, which was rejected by the Additional Inspector General of Police Punjab, Lahore, vide memorandum No. 4713/E dated 24.4.1986. He filed a revision petition against tbe said order before the Inspector General of Police inter alia on the ground that Mr. Nisar Ahmad, Cheema, the then Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, was the Chairman of the Departmental Promotion Committee and, therefore, he was not competent to dispose of his representation, and sit in judgment over the recommendations of the Committee. In consequence, the Inspector General of Police remitted the case to Mr. Salman Qureshi, presently working as Additional Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, in that, in accordance with serial No.8 of the distribution list of the police department, he was competent to dispose of the representation, whereupon Mr. Salman, the Additional Inspector General after examining the service record of respondent No.3, recorded a finding of fact that according to the Character Roll, the respondent No.3 earned 'A-l' and 'A' reports since 1981 and had a better career compared to his junior colleagues including the petitioner and gained promotion in 1984. The representation of respondent No3 was therefore, accepted by promoting him to the rank of Inspector w.e.f. 1.4.1982 vide order dated 2.6.1990, impugned herein. It was also observed in the impugned order that respondent No.3 will gain seniority over the petitioner and would also be entitled to all consequential benefits.
3. Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Mr. Salman Qureshi, the Additional Inspector General of Police had no jurisdiction . To order promotion of the petitioner even if the earlier recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee were untenable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as envisaged by rule 13.1 and 13,16 of Police Rules, the matter should have been referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee, as well as the Deputy Inspector General of Police for soliciting their recommendations. The contention is devoid of any force. The first representation was disposed of by the Departmental Promotion Committee headed by Mr. Nisar Ahmad Cheema the Additional Inspector General of Police and therefore, he was incompetent to dispose of the representation of respondent No.3 against the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Nisar Ahmad Cheema, could not be a judge in his own cause. Thus visualised, the disposal of representation by Mr. Nisar Ahmad. Cheema, Additional Inspector General was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Viewed from this angle, the first representation was deemed to be pending and its disposal by Mr. Salman Qureshi suffered from no legal infirmity. The ratio laid down in Shafaat Ahmad v. Government of Punjab (1986 SGMR 30), heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner does not advance the case of the petitioner. In the precedent case, it was held that even where a right of appeal or representation exists, it implies one such right and not its repeated exercise. Here the representation originally filed -by the petitioner was never disposed of in accordance with law. Clearly, the petitioner has a vested right to demand that his representation be disposed of justly, fairly and in accordance with law by the competent authority and therefore, no legitimate grievance can be raised by the petitioner to the disposal of the petitioner's representation, even if the second representation, which was described as revision petition was ignored. Rules 13.1 and 13.16 of the Police Rules are not relevant in the context of the present controversy. The Additional Inspector General while sitting in judgment after the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee came to the conclusion that the petitioner ought to have been recommended for promotion. This was within his competence. Furthermore, the decision of the Departmental Committee is based on erroneous assumption of fact that the petitioner has poor service record and was twice compulsorily retired.
As a matter of fact the petitioner was compulsorily retired only once but the order of his retirement was set aside by the Inspector General on the ground that the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Crimes) had no jurisdiction to retire him. The Inspector General of Police, however, left the matter open for the competent authority to pass fresh order whereupon the S.P. (Crimes) retired the petitioner on 1.3.1980 on the basis of adverse remarks contained in the A.C. Rs. Of the respondent for the year 1976, but the adverse remarks were admittedly expunged by the Services Tribunal vide order dated 2.3.1983 and in consequence thereof, the petitioner was re-instated with effect from 1.3.1980. I am, therefore, of the view that the impugned order is just and fair and this is not a fit case for the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the petitioner has already moved a representation before the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, on the same subject matter. Viewed from this angle as well, the petitioner cannot successfully maintain this petition.