RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN): --This is an appeal against the Order No. 1786-99, dated 29-12-1992 of Inspector-General of Police whereby a provisional seniority list concerning Prosecuting Inspectors and other Police Officers was circulated and the concerned Officers of the Police Force were required to file their objections to the said provisional seniority list.
The relevant facts of the case are that appellant was appointed as Prosecuting Inspector vide Order Book No. 240, dated 3-6-1981 and was deputed for training at Police College, Sahala. He completed his course with credit whereas respondents Nos. 3 to 15 passed the said course with standard. The appointment of appellant was confirmed vide Order Book No. 305, dated 9-8-1984 with effect from 16-7-1984. Respondents namely Muzaffar Hussain, Javed Iqbal Chaughtai were confirmed vide order dated 16-7-1984 with immediate effect whereas respondents namely Muhammad Younas, Muhammad Ashiq, Haroon-ur-Rasheed and Muhammad Ayub were confirmed vide Order Book No. 47, dated 13-1-1989 with effect from 16-7-1984. Respondent Muhammad Rafique was confirmed vide Order Book No.51, dated 5-3-1991 with effect from 16-7- 1984. Likewise, Ch. Muhammad Ayub respondent was confirmed vide Order Book No. 361, dated 17- 9-1984 with effect from 16-7-1984. The rest of the respondents were confirmed vide Order Book No. 305, dated 9-8-1984 with effect from 16-7-1984.
3. The preliminary seniority list was published by the Inspector-General of Police vide letter-dated 29-12-1992 and objections to the said seniority list were invited. Appellant fled his objections against the said seniority list on 28-1-1993. The respondent No. 1 has not decided the objections of the appellant and the seniority list conveyed to the appellant so far and after the expiry of the period of 90 days appellant has fled this appeal.
4. The counsel for the parties addressed their respective arguments on the merits of the case as built by them in their pleadings. While going through the memorandum of appeal we find that Inspector-General of Police had issued letter Annexure `G' and seniority list ---G/1--- and required the concerned Officers to submit their objections and in case any one of them failed to file his objections the provisional seniority list would be deemed to have attained finality. The appellant has, as stated by him in the appeal filed his written objections against the said provisional seniority list. The Inspector-General of Police has so far not decided the case of seniority of appellant and the appellant has approached this Tribunal after the expiry of a period of 90 days from the filing of the objections.
5. The Department has circulated a provisional seniority list to which appellant has filed his objections. Inspector-General of Police has not so far given any decision on the matter and thus the case is of provisional nature and cannot be agitated before this Tribunal. It is requirement of section 4 of Service Tribunal Act that a civil servant aggrieved by any final order can prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. In addition to this provision it is provided under proviso to aforesaid section that the aggrieved civil servant before coming to the Tribunal shall approach the Departmental Authority and after expiry of statutory period of 90 days, he shall file an appeal in this Tribunal. The proceedings before the Inspector-General of Police are of provisional nature. He has yet to decide the seniority of the appellant and other Prosecuting Inspectors. The proposed decision shall not be a final order and the aggrieved persons are required to first seek the departmental remedy before the next higher authority to the Inspector --General of Police.
6. The above stated facts lead to the conclusion that the present appeal is premature and not competent before this Tribunal. In the circumstances we feel that it is unnecessary to discuss the merits of the case.
7. Under the circumstances, we propose to dismiss this appeal as being incompetent and premature with no order as to the costs.