1. ' MUNAWAR ALI KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---In this appeal, appellant Muhammad Jehangir, has called in question the I.-G.P's. Order dated 2-12-1992 whereby he was ignored for induction in the list 'F, following the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred as D.P.C.). In brief the facts leading to passing of the above-impugned order are these: the appellant joined Police Department as ASI with effect from 1-11-1976. He was promoted to the post of S.I. On 30-3-1982. According to him his posting at police station was spread over a period of nine years including three years in the capacity of Sub-Inspector. In the Seniority of Sub-Inspectors published on 30th October, 1982, the appellant was placed at S.No,270. When he was sent for training of the Anti-terrorist Squad Course, the appellant was declared unfit for the said training by letter dated 15-8-1984. Consequently he was reverted to his substantive rank of A.S.I. Vide Order dated 2-1-1984. He was then transferred to Traffic Department by order dated 12-5-1985. Somehow his appeal against his reversion order was allowed and he was restored to the rank of Sub- Inspector retrospectively with effect from 2-1-1984, though for the intervening period of two years his increments were stopped.
2. ' By Order No, 16711/E-11/1990 Karachi, dated 27th November, 1990 List 'F' based on recommendations of the D.P.C. Was issued. The appellant's name was conspicuously missing from the said list. The appellant filed representation against the omission of his name whereupon his date of confirmation was changed from 24-4-1989 to 1-10-1985. Following the meetings of the D.P.C. From 11-11-1992 to 18-11-1992, their recommendations for induction of S.I.Ps'. Names in 'F' list were incorporated in the impugned order issued by the I.-G.P. The name of the appellant in the said order was mentioned at S.No,37, with observations "ignored for want of P.S. Working. To be transferred for posting at P.Ss. To gain requisite P.S. Experience." Aggrieved by the said observation, the appellant made review petition dated 5-12-1992 to the I.-G.P. As it remained undisposed for 90 days, the appellant filed the present appeal on 1-4-1993.
3. ' We heard Mr. Talmiz Burney for the appellant and the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the official respondents. We also went through the relevant record carefully. None of the private respondents turned up for arguments and they were called absent.
4. ' The appellant's main prayer is that the I.-G.P.'s. Order dated 2-12-1992 to the extent of his admission in the list 'F' be set aside. It would appear that on recommendations of D.P.C. The S.Is specified in the said order were either inducted in the list 'F' or were denied admission therein. The appellant's name appeared at S.No, 37 in the order with remarks indicating that he was refused admission in List 'F. The remarks were given in these words "ignored for want of P.S. Working. To be transferred for posting at P.Ss. To gain requisite P.S. Experience. Disagreeing with these remarks, the appellant's learned counsel submitted that the said remarks were inconsistent with the admission made in the written statement filed on behalf of the official respondents. The admission was that appellant possessed the requisite experience of working of Police Stations. To prove his point he invited our attention to para. 4 of the memo of appeal and para. 1 of the official written statement.
5. In para. 4 of his memo of appeal the appellant,has taken a plea that his posting at police stations were for a period of nine years which included three years' period as a Sub-Inspector. The truth of this statement has been admitted in para 1 of the official written statement. Therefore, the appellant's learned counsel contended that the DPC while considering the appellant's case did not apply their mind with the result that they came to the wrong conclusion and chose to ignore the appellant for induction in the list for the reasons which were non-existent. On the other hand the learned A.A.-G. Took the stand that since the appellant's induction in list involved his fitness for promotion, this Tribunal had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. In support of his argument he not only relied upon the proviso (b) to section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the said Act) but also cited several cases of similar type in which this Tribunal had taken the above view.
6. ' We have given our due thought to the arguments addressed at the Bar. It goes without saying that 'F' list cannot be treated at par with the seniority list had it been so, there was absolutely no justification to resort to unnecessary duplication. The process of compiling seniority list is totally different from that of preparing 'F' list. The method followed in the former case is almost automatic, in that the name of a civil servant is entered in the seniority list of the specified cadre as soon as his appointment by any mode is made in the prescribed manner in other words his seniority is reckoned from the date of his regular appointment. But that is not so in the case of 'F' list.. The names of only those Sub-Inspectors are entered in the said list, who, after close scrutiny of their service record, are declared fit for promotion to higher grade. It is for the competent departmental authorities to determine their fitness for promotion as provided in proviso (b) to section 4 of the said Act, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to take a decision with regard to fitness of a civil servant for promotion. We are therefore inclined to agree with the learned A.A.-G that we are not competent to decide about the appellant's induction in list 'F.
7. ' Despite the above legal position, the Supreme Court has taken the view in several cases that if a civil servant was not considered for promotion on his turn even though he was eligible for the same, the Service Tribunal had power to intervene in such case and issue appropriate direction that he be considered for promotion relying on the aforesaid views of Supreme Court, the appellant's learned counsel contended that the appellant was not considered for promotion, though he possessed the requisite eligibility. In this connection, the leaned counsel was confronted with the observations made in the impugned order opposite to the appellant's name, which clearly indicated that he was considered for promotion but was ignored for the specified reasons. To this the learned counsel's reply was that the reasons given for the appellant's ignoring for induction 'F list were incorrect inasmuch as they did not tally with the stand taken is this regard by the official respondents. He pointed out that it was admitted in the written statement that the appellant had the experience of working at police stations and his said experience comprised a total period of nine years out of which he had served as Sub-Inspector for three years. At this stage our attention was drawn to the promotion policy mentioned in the impugned order which was obviously followed by the D.P.C. While approving the Sub-Inspectors for promotion. It may be pertinent to refer to clause (c) of the said policy which reads as under:-- "(c) The officer should have experience of working as S.H.O. Or at least police station working (P R 13.14(2))."
8. ' As required by the above clause, the appellant had admittedly no experience of working as S.H.O.
9. Though he had served at police stations in different other capacities however, it has not been made clear either in the above clause or in the rule on which the said clause is based as to what length of experience of working at police station was required to qualify for promotion to the higher grade. We have no doubt that the admitted amount of experience mentioned above must be within the knowledge of the D.P.C. At the time of considering the appellant's case for promotion.
10. Despite that the appellant was ignored for the reason of want of working at P.S. With recommendation that he be transferred for posting at P.Ss. For gaining the requisite P.S. Experience.
11. This clearly indicated that the experience already possessed by the appellant was considered insufficient by the D.P.C. For the purpose of his promotion to higher grade. Moreover, after the appellant was declared unfit for anti-terrorist squad course he was not only reverted to the rank of A.S.I. But was also transferred to Traffic Department of course he was subsequently restored to his earlier position as SIP, but there was nothing to show that he was also withdrawn from the Traffic Department. According to the plea taken in the official written statement the Traffic Branch was not included in the amendment if sub-rule (3) of rule 13.14. As such the period of time spent by the appellant in the said branch was obviously not added to the required experience for promotion. In view of the circumstances explained above, the question arose if this Tribunal was competent to take a decision with regard to the length of experience of working at police stations and substitute its decision in place of the decision of the D.P.C. And clear the appellant for inclusion of his name in `F` list? The answer to this question would be in the negative for the reasons given in the foregoing paragraphs.
12. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal must fail accordingly it is dismissed with no orders as to costs