SARDAR MUHAMMAD SAJAWAL KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---This is an appeal by Muhammad Akshad Khan, Assistant Sub-Inspector (Reserve) Police, Muzaffarabad against Order Book Nos.75, 83, 154 and 140, dated 14-4-1988, 19-4-1988, 21-7-1988 and 4-4-1988 respectively made by D.I: G. Of Police Headquarters, Muzaffarabad (respondent No.2) and Order No. 9972, dated 5-8-1989 made by Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarabad (respondent No.3). The appeal is directed against the aforesaid orders of appointment of Sub-Inspector of Police in Reserve Police. The appellant has impleaded Inspector-General of Police, Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarabad and the appointees Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Raja Hoshiar Ahmad, Muhammad Yasin, Muhammad Farooq Khan, Muneer Ahmad, Muhammad Khan, Gulab Khan and Muhammad Iqbal Khan Sub-Inspectors as respondents for the redress of his grievance.
2. This is the first appeal of its nature which is most probably directed against the direct recruitment of Sub-Inspectors of Police in Reserve Police. The grounds of appeal as are mentioned in the memo. Of appeal are as follows:--
(i) that under the Police Rules there is no provision for making direct recruitment of Sub-Inspectors and as such the aforesaid appointment ordered by respondents Nos.2 and 3 were made in violation of the Police Rules;
(ii) that under the Police Rules, the percentage is fixed for direct recruitment and promotions from the Department but under the impugned orders all the eight posts of Sub-Inspectors were filled in by the direct recruitment;
(iii) that the order dated 4-4-1988 made by Senior Superintendent of Police (respondent No.3) is without jurisdiction and hence it was an order ab initio void in respect of respondents Nos.8 to 10;
(iv) that the appointments of respondents Nos.4 to 10 are also against the spirit of Government Order No.155/S&GAD/82, dated 1-8-1982 wherein quota is fixed for direct recruitment of ex Army personnel---s. According to the said Government order 25% vacancies were to be filled in by ex- Army personnel qualified for such appointments. But in the present case the entire number of vacancies of Sub-Inspectors was given to the retired junior commissioned officers of the Army;
(v) that under the prescribed rules, the appointments of Sub-Inspectors is made in view of prescribed age limit but in the present case the old age of respondents Nos.4 to 10 was not taken into consideration;
(vi) that the appellant being the senior most Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Branch of Reserve Police having a spotless service record and carrier fully deserved to be considered for promotion to the post of Sub---Inspector but he was deprived of the same illegally;
(vii) that the Deputy Inspector-General of Police (respondent No.2) held no powers to hear representation which was addressed to Inspector --General of Police (respondent No.1) and for that reason the order dated 5-8-1989 made by him is also without jurisdiction and bad in law.
3. It is prayed by the appellant that the impugned orders be declared null and void and the appellant be declared promoted as Sub-Inspector in the Reserve Police w.e.f. The date on which the impugned orders of promotion were made by respondents Nos.2 and 3.
4. In the written statements submitted on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 11 a number of objections have been raised such as the appeal is time-barred, respondent No.1 has been wrongly impleaded, no departmental appeal was made against the impugned order dated 21-7-1988 and as such the appeal was not maintainable on that account. Appeal was suffering from misjoinder of causes of action and was not maintainable on that account. The impugned order dated 4-4-1988 made by Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarabad was appealable but no appeal was directed against that order and hence an appeal at this forum was not competent. The impugned orders made by Deputy Inspector-General of Police were appealable before Inspector-General of Police but no appeal was made to that office by the appellant and hence under section 4 of Service Tribunals Act the appeal was not maintainable at this forum. The appellant is employed in Reserve Police whereas the 1994 Muhammad Akshad Khan v. Inspector-General of Police whereas the respondents Nos.4 to 11 were taken in additional Reserve Police which is purely temporary establishment and the appointments of the respondents were made on ad hoc basis and the last objection is that the posts of Sub-Inspectors were created under the special orders of the Government in the reserved quota for ex-A=my personnel and refugees and hence the appellant must not feel himself aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of appointment. According to the respondents, the appellant is not an aggrieved servant of the Police Department.
5. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and the respondents. We have also gone through the relevant chapter of the Police Rules and the orders of the Government passed from time to time about the raising of Police Reserve Force by adding at least ten Palatoons in the same force. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that under the Police Rules, 1934, as is enforced in the Azad State of Jammu and Kashmir direct recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Reserve Police is not permitted excepting on the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors to the extent of 25%. The respondents Nos.4 to 11 were directly taken as Sub-Inspectors in the Reserve Force and because of their direct entry in service of Reserve Police, the appellant as well as numerous other cases of deserving promotions were put aside under the impugned orders of promotions. The appellant being the senior most. Assistant Sub- Inspector fully deserved the promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector but he was not considered for promotion by the Senior Police Officers respondents Nos.1 to 3. On behalf of , the respondents, it is argued that the additional posts of Sub-Inspectors were created to meet with the abnormal situation prevailing at the relevant time in the country for a limited period and hence the appellant held no cause of grievance. The appellant has since been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector in the regular reserve force and his appeal has become infructuous. It is further argued on behalf of respondents that the newly-created eight posts of Sub-- Inspectors were falling in the quota of Army persons and refugees and hence the appellant was not an aggrieved police servant. The appeal is barred by limitation and was not maintainable on that account.
6. There is no denying the fact that the direct recruitment on the posts of Sub-Inspectors is not permitted in the Reserve Police under the Police Rules. At the same time, there is nothing on the file to show that the vacant posts of Sub-Inspectors had fallen in the share of reserved quota fixed for retired Army personnel and refugees. Therefore, this argument falls to the grounds that the appellant is not an aggrieved servant of the Police Department. We do not find any force in this argument also that with the promotion of the appellant to the post of Sub-Inspector in the regular Reserve Force, the present appeal has become infructuous. It is true that the appellant felt himself aggrieved because he was not promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector at the relevant date on which the promotion of respondents Nos.4 to 11 was ordered: But the claim of the appellant is that he may be declared promoted w.e.f. The date the respondents were employed as Sub-Inspectors in the Reserve Police Force. It is, no doubt, that his grievance by granting him promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector has been mitigated to some extent but he was granted this promotion long after the appointments of respondents Nos.4 to 11 under the impugned orders. The appellant's claim is that he may be granted promotion w.e.f. The date the respondents Nos.4 to 11 were appointed against the vacancies of Sub-- Inspectors in the Reserve Police and this much claim of the appellant is still to be adjudicated through the present judgment of this Tribunal. We find much force in this argument that the appellant who was a senior most Assistant Sub-- Inspector at the relevant time of promotion must have been considered for his promotion to the post of Sub- Inspector even if that post was temporarily created for a limited period. The post of Sub-Inspectors still continue to exist on the budget provision of the Police Department and nobody knows how long they will continue to exist in that budget of the Police Department. It appears that the senior Police Officers sometimes make orders of appointments of officers hurriedly without consulting the relevant provisions of Police Rules. We agree with this contention of the respondents that the appellant was required to avail of the departmental remedy before approaching this Tribunal in appeal but we are quite alive to the situation that Police Rules do not provide any media if any of the police servants is not considered for promotion in the Department. Hence the representation made to the Inspector-General of Police by the appellant is the sufficient compliance of rule of law before submitting his appeal by the appellant at this forum: The representation was made to the Inspector-General of Police on 2-6-1988 while the impugned orders of appointments were made on 14-4-1988, 19-4-1988 and 4-4-1988 before passing the period of two months and after rejection of the representation on 5-8-1992 by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, the appeal brought in this Tribunal against the order of rejection of his representation by the appellant made on 5-8-1989 is undoubtedly within time. But the unfortunate aspect of the case is that the appellant is holding a permanent post now in the Department and in case of his promotion being made against a temporary post some legal complications are surely to arise because a holder of the permanent post cannot be shifted against a temporary post. Therefore, we would like to suggest to the Department that a notional .Promotion be allowed to the appellant by which he shall be deemed to have been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector w.e.f. 4-4-1988 and thereby he shall rank senior to respondents Nos.4 to 11.
7. For the above reasons, the appeal is accepted to this extent that the appellant shall be entitled to a notional promotion w.e.f. 4-4-1988 and that he shall rank senior to Police Officers respondents