1. MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN):--In this appeal, Mr. Qazi Muhammad Abbas, a Prosecuting Sub-Inspector (P.S.I.) has questioned the correctness of the I.-G.P: s order dated 9-3-1993. By the said order, although all the private respondents who were junior to the appellant were admitted to the promotion List "F", yet the appellant was ignored for admission to the said list. The appellant challenged the above order in representation to the D.I.-G.P. Who forwarded it to the L-G.P. And the latter by his order dated 29-4-1993 rejected the same. The appellant was intimated of the L-G.P.'s order by the endorsement-dated 5-5-1993 of the Principal P.T.S., Shahdadpur where the appellant was then working. As Instructor. On the -basis of that intimation the appellant filed this appeal on 11-5-1993.
2. As disclosed in the memo of appeal, the appellant's case is that he joined as P.S.I. In Sindh Police w.e.f. 15th May, 1978. He qualified by passing P.S.I.'s Examination with credit from Police Training School, Sihala (Punjab). The appellant was confirmed as P.S.I. In the year 1989, vide the D.I.G.P.'s W.T.
3. Message dated 17-6-1989. In July, 1992 when the appellant was working as Instructor in Police Training College, Saeedabad, the I: G.P. Called for the names of suitable P.S.Is. For enlistment in the unified seniority List "F". After due scrutiny of his service record, the appellant's name was recommended by the Principal of the above College for admission to List "F'. The recommendations were later countersigned by the D.I: G.P. And were, ultimately sent to the I: G.P. But some hidden hand played mischief with regard to the appellant's some A.C.Rs. For which he had complained to the I.-G.P. When the appellant was called for personal hearing by the I.-G.P., he reiterated his above complaint whereupon the I.-G.P. After going through the appellant's service record available in the office assured him that his name would be admitted to List "F" . But on 13-3-1993 when he came across the notification dated 9-3-1993 issued by the I.-G.P., he found that he was ignored for admission to the said list due to unsatisfactory service record. Therefore, as stated above, he filed the present appeal.
4. We heard the appellant personally and learned AA.-G. For the official respondents. Three of the private respondents were ex parte and the remaining two 7private respondents who filed written statement were also called absent. We went through all the documents relevant for disposal of the appeal.
5. The I.- G.P.'s order dated 9-3-1993 which has been impugned in this appeal, indicates that the P.S.Is.
6. Whose names appear at S. Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 have been admitted to `F List w.e.f the date of the order. The admission of other P.S.Is. Shown at S. Nos. 3, 4 and 14 has been deferred due to one or the other reason. The remaining two P.S.Is. Mentioned at S. Nos.6 and 10, one of whom ;s the appellant, are the only unlucky P.S.Is. Who have been refused admission. The appellant's name appears at No. 10. It is mentioned against his name that he has been ignored on account of unsatisfactory record. The appellant attached the impugned order with all the vehemence he could muster up. Elaborating his official performance and service record, he submitted that during his entire service of 15 years no adverse ACR was ever conveyed to him; only two minor punishments were awarded to him, neither any criminal case nor any Anti-Corruption case nor any enquiry was pending against him; he had longer service to his credit than most of the respondents admitted to `F List and finally for the last five years, the A.C.Rs. Given to him are of `A' Category for 1992, 1991 and 1989 and of B' for 1790 and 1988. He further stated that his immediate boss, the.
7. Principal of the Training College where he was serving as Instructor recommended his name for admission to `F List and the D.I.-G.P., the next higher authority duly endorsed the said recommendations and it was only in the office of the I.-G.P. Where some hidden hand came into play and harmed his interests to his disadvantage.
8. The learned AA.-G. Categorically refuted the appellant's allegations of foul play made with the appellant's A.C.Rs. The same plea has been taken in the written statement wherein the appellant's allegations have been termed as absurd having no truth in them. Even otherwise the appellant had not been specific in making his allegations which were patently vague and of general nature, incapable of being investigated into. Unless he came out with the necessary details as to the names of persons and the manner in which such persons had been acting against his interests, he could not expect any conclusion or decision to be based on his mere speculations and conjectures. If the lower two authorities namely the Principal of the Training College and the D.I.- G.P. Had really been favourable to him in recommending his case, we see no reason why the highest police authority of the Province namely the I.-G.P. Should be personal in his case and turn hostile to him so much so that Without giving any consideration to the recommendations of the lower authorities, would throw out the same. For going to that extent, the I.-G.P. Should be having very strong motive which in our opinion, was not forthcoming on record. Moreover the I.-G.P. Had taken the decision for admission to `F List or otherwise on the recommendations of the D.P.C.
9. Headed by the Addl. I--G.P. Who in their turn made their recommendations after thorough scrutiny of the service record of all the P.S.Is. Figuring in the impugned order. Neither the appellant himself has attributed any inimical motive to the members of the D.P.C. Nor we belie-e that the D.P.C'_s recommendations were the result of their biased mind. After all the suitability of the appellant for promotion to higher post had to be determined on the basis of overall picture reflected by his service record. As stated above he has admitted that two minor punishments were awarded to him and the ACRs of two of the last five years were only of `B' category which means "Average".
10. Besides this he was given adverse ACR for 1987 though he has himself denied it. It was even the authorities concerned to decide how far the above weaknesses in his service record would affect the appellant's prospects of promotion.
11. It goes without saying that `F List is not same as seniority list. Only those P:S.Is. Were to be admitted to `F List who were declared fit for promotion to higher post of P.1. Their fitness for promotion had to be determined in accordance with the procedure laid down in rule 13.15 of the Police Rules, 1934.
12. This Tribunal has held in its two earlier decisions, ride the Appeal No. 49 of 1988 filed by Abdullah Memon and Appeal No. 43 of 1990 filed by Muhammad Saleh Qadri, that since admission to `F List involved the fitness of persons to be admitted in the said list for promotion to higher post, as declared by three Police authorities ranging from S.P. To I.-G.P. It was doubtful if the Service Tribunal was competent to substitute its own decision and then on that basis admit or exclude from the said list, any such official. In this connection reference may be made to proviso (b) to section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which bars the jurisdiction of this Tribunal from going into the question of fitness for appointment or promotion. Apart from this legal restriction in the way of this Tribunal, the appellant does not teem to have good case even on merits, as has been discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. Therefore, it may perhaps not be relevant to discuss the applicability of the Supreme Court Authority (1983 SCM R 34) cited by the appellant in support of his case. Even otherwise, the said reported authority being distinguishable is not applicable in the present case.
13. This is clear from the observations made by the Supreme Court which are as follows: "We are also not impressed by the contention that the appeal preferred by Ashfaq Ahmed impinged upon the provision of priviso (b) to section 4(1) of the Act IX of 1974, for his grievances basically was against discrimination qua his junior Shah Mahmood".
14. In view of the above discussion, the appeal has no merit and is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.