ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN): --Appeals Nos.141(K)/93, 143(x)/93 and 147(x)/93 filed by M/s. Shafiullah Qureshi, Syed- Kazim Raza and Syed Pir Qurban Ali Shah, relate to determination of their seniority in the cadre of PSP as against their counterparts/respondents impugned in these appeals.
2. Briefly, the facts of Appeals Nos. 141(x)/93 and 143(x)/93 are that both the appellants M/s. Shafiullah Qureshi and Syed Kazim Raza joined the Provincial Sindh Police as Inspectors in October, 1954 and both of them were promoted as DSP with effect from 1-7-1974 and confirmed as such vide Notification dated 29-9-1981. Private respondents Nos. 3, 14, 46 and 47 -- M/s. Waseem Ahmed, Mumtaz Ahmed Burney, Abdul Karim Pathan and Muhammad Saeed Malik respectively, were inducted as DSP through lateral entry with effect from 10-9-1947. By notification dated 7-10-1987 issued by the Establishment Division, the competent authority approved the appointment of the aforesaid private respondents as Superintendent of Police to the Police Service of Pakistan under Rule 7 of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition, Cadre and Seniority) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the PSP 1985 Rules), from the dates of their appointments as under:-
(1) Mr. Waseem Ahmad 15-6-1984
(2) Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad Burney15-2-1985
(3) Mr. Abdul Karim Pathan 1-6-1986
(4) Mr. Muhammad Saeed Malik 1-6-1986 Subsequently, the Establishment Division issued notification dated 28-2-1993 whereunder the competent authority approved the appointments of certain Provincial Sindh Police Officers, including the appellants, as Superintendent of Police to the Police Service of Pakistan under Rule 7 of the PSP 1985 Rules, with effect from the dates mentioned below:
(1) Mr. Shafiullah Qureshi 1-1-1988
(2) Mr. Syed Kazim Raza 27-9-1987
(3) Mr. Pir Qurban Ali Shah 28-5-1990 A Gradation List of Officers in B- 18 of the Police Service of Pakistan as stood on 28-2-1993 was circulated by the Establishment Division inviting objections, by letter dated 18-5-1993. Both the appellants filed departmental appeals on 15-6-1993, which remained undecided and after the expiry of 90 dais waiting period, they filed these appeals, as aforesaid, on 11-10-1993.
3. Appeal No. 147(x)/93 has been filed by Mr. Syed Pir Qurban Ali Shah. The facts of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant was inducted as DSP in the Sindh Police with effect from 10-9- 1974 alongwith respondent No. 3, Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Burney. He was promoted to the rank of Superintendent of Police on 1-6-1986. The Home Department of the Government of Sindh by notification dated 29-9-1981 regularised the appointments of all the DSPs who were directly recruited on the recommendations of Sindh Public Service Commission and their inter se seniority was to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 11(a) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained in the departmental examinations with the condition that those who cleared first were to be placed above those who cleared later. According to this notification, the name of the appellant was placed at S.No. 6 while the name of respondent No. 3 at S.No. 9. The contention of the appellant is that since respondents 4 to 7 were promoted from the rank of Inspectors and all of them including respondent No. 3 were junior to the appellant in the rank of DSP as per seniority list dated 28-2-1982 and were promoted as S.P: much later than the appellant, therefore, he could not be relegated to lower position in the Gradation List dated 28-2-1993 issued by the Establishment Division. He made departmental appeal on 27-6-1993 to which he received no reply and hence this appeal filed before the Tribunal on 16-10-1993 for determination of seniority vis-a-vis the private respondents.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in all the three appeals at length. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that seniority of the PSP Officers is to be determined under Rule 11(2)(c) of the PSP 1985 Rules, after hearing the appellants, which has not been done by the Establishment Division. Mr. Fazle Ghani Khan, the learned counsel appearing for private respondent Mr. Mumtaz Ahmed Burney, in Appeal No.147 (x)/93, pointed out that Gradation List in respect of the appellants M/s. Shafiullah Qureshi and Syed Kazim Raza (Appeals Nos. 141 and 143(x)/93 and Syed Pir Qurban Ali Shah, appellant in Appeal No. 147 (x)/93, is `provisional' and as such appeals are not competent. Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan and Mr. Sabihuddin Ahmed, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they have filed departmental representations/appeals against the Gradation List and the same are still pending. The contention of Mr. Manzoor Ali Khan is that as far as other respondents are concerned, their seniority is final. We would not like to make any observation on this submission at this stage as the Establishment Division has yet to decide and take final decision with regard to seniority of all the three appellants and in case appellants' viewpoint is accepted, the seniority/Gradation List shall have to be recast. We are of the view that all the three appeals at this stage are premature as Gradation List with regard to appellants is provisional and their appeals also are pending, and final seniority list of appellants is yet to be decided. Therefore, we suggest the Establishment Division to take early decision on the departmental representations/appeals filed- by the appellants and determine' their provisional seniority within three months and pass appropriate order with' reasons in view of the case reported in 1991 SCM R 2330, the relevant paragraph of which is reproduced below for convenience sake: "... But in many other cases we have been seen that the rejection is a simple ritualistic rejection.
Even if it is not a mandate by any law that the officer concerned should be informed about the reasons which prevailed with the authority concerned, it would not be illegal either to give reasons; at least from now onward. It being the judgment of this Court on this legal question, the same would be observed as declared law."
5. With these observations, all the three appeals are disposed of in the terms indicated above.