1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---We propose to dispose of the abovementioned two civil appeals by a common judgment as both these appeals are directed against the same impugned judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal dated 8-9-1994.
2. Jaffar Abbas (respondent No,1 in Civil Appeal No, 692 of 1995) and Zulfiqar Ahmed (respondent No, 5 in Civil Appeal No, 693 of 1995) hereinafter to be referred as 'the respondentsonly, preferred two service appeals before the Punjab Service Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal') questioning the order of seniority assigned to appellants in the abovementioned appeals (hereinafter to be referred as 'the appellantsonly) and several others by the department in the cadre of Sargeant/Inspector in the police force. The appeals were resisted before the Tribunal both on the point of limitation as well as on merits. The learned Tribunal found both the appeals within time. On merits the learned Tribunal held that respondents ranked senior to appellants on the basis of order of merits assigned to them at the time of their initial appointment as Sargeant Inspectors.
3. Leave was granted against the judgment of learned Tribunal in both the cases to consider the following points of law:-- "2. In support of the above petitions, Mr. Saleem Chaudhry, learned ASC appearing for the petitioners, has urged that the Tribunal has erred in not applying Rule 13.21 (2) of the Police Rules, 1934, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, and instead applied general rules. His further submission was that in presence of special rules providing for fixation of seniority in the Police Department, resort could not have been made to the general rules. Reliance was placed by him on the case of Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Mushtaq Ahmad Waraich and others (PLD 1985 SC 159), in which inter alia it has been held that where a special provision has been made in a special statute that a special provision excludes the general provision in the general law."
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the appellants mainly contended that the general rule of seniority applicable to the civil servants was not applicable in the case of appellants and respondents who were governed under the Police Rules, 1934, hereinafter to be called as 'the Rulesonly, in view of decision of this Court in the case of Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Mushtaq Ahmad Waraich and others.
5. (PLD 1985 SC 159). The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the judgment of learned Tribunal and contended that as the Rules were silent as to the assignment of seniority on the basis of merit, the general rule of seniority contained in Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, applied to civil servants generally, would apply to the case of appellants and respondents.
6. To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to state here in brief the background of the present controversy. By Notification dated 9th of May, 1984 issued by the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab (I.-G.P.), number of new rules in various chapters of the Rules, were added with the approval of Government. We will, however, refer here only those newly-added rules which are relevant for the controversy before us. Under the newly-added mule 12.43(3), a new cadre of Sargeant/Inspector was created in the police force. Power to appoint and confirm Sargeant/Inspector was conferred on I.-G.P/Additional I.-G.P. Under rule 12.43(1) but the appointment of Sargeant Inspectors was to be made on the recommendations of a Selection Committee to be constituted under rule 12.44 with the approval of Government. Rule 12.44 ibid further provided that the ratio of direct-appointee and departmental promotees in the cadre of Sargeant/Inspector would be 70% and 30% respectively. A sub-cadre of Traffic Sargeants/Inspectors in the cadre of Sargeant/Inspector was also created under rule 13.21. Rule 13.21 (2) ibid, laid down the basis for determination of seniority inter se of Sargeant/Inspectors in this sub-cadre.
7. It is an admitted position that the appellants and the respondents were recommended together by the Selection Committee for appointment as Traffic Sargeant/Inspectors of Police on 23-7-1984.
8. According to the order of merit assigned by the Selection Committee in its recommendations, S. Jaffar Abbas and Zulfigar Ahmed (respondents) were placed at serial numbers 6 and 15 while the appellants, Neimat Ali Goraya, Riaz Hussain, Tahir Alam Khan and Waqar Haider Bhatti were at serial numbers 11, 19, 24 and 30 respectively. However, in the consolidated appointment letter issued on 24-7-1984, the names of S. Jaffar Abbas and Zulfigar Ahmed (respondents) appeared at Serial Nos. 5 and 13, while the names of appellants, Niamat Ali Goraya, Tahir Alam Khan, Riaz Hussain and Waqar Haider Bhatti were placed at serial Nos.9, 23, 26 and 30 respectively. The initial appointment of appellants and respondents was on a purely temporary basis subject to their successfully qualifying the course, prescribed for training and they were to be governed by the Police Act, 1861 and Rules made thereunder from time thime.
9. It is common case of the parties before us that the appellants and respondents were confirmed as Sargeant/Inspectors on 6-7-1991 with effect from 1-7-1987. The copy of consolidated confirmation letter dated 6-7-1991 issued by the competent Authority, placed on record before us, however, shows that while confirming the appellants and the respondents their seniority was also fixed under rule 12.2(3) of the Rules. We may also mention here. That in the copy of confirmation letter dated 6-7-1991 filed before us only the names of two appellants Niamat Ali Goraya and Riaz Hussain Shah and the two respondents Jaffar Abbas and Zulfiqar Ahmed appear while the names of remaining two appellants Tahir Alam Khan and Waqar Haider Bhatti did notfind place therein.
10. According to seniority assigned to them in the above letter of confirmation, names of Niamat Ali Goraya and Riaz Hussain were placed at serial numbers 1 and 2 while the names of respondents Jaffar Abbas and Zulfiqar Ahmed appeared at serial numbers 17 and 21 respectively.
11. Respondents Syed Jaffar Abbas and Zulfiqar Ahmed represented to the I.-G.P. Punjab against the seniority assigned to them in the confirmation letter dated 6-7-1991. By order dated 22-6-1992, the Additional I.-G.P. Rejected their representation and determined the seniority of appellants and respondents under rule 12.2(3) of the Rules as follows:-- Niamat Ali Goraya Serial No, 1 Riaz Hussain Shah " 2 Tahir Alam Khan 5 Waqar Haider Bhatti " 8 Jaffar Abbas " 20 Zulfiqar Ahmed " 25 Against the above order of Addl. I.-G.P., Punjab dated 22-6-1992, two separate appeals were preferred by the respondents before the Tribunal. The appeals were resisted both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The learned Tribunal found both the appeals within time having been filed on 9-7-1992.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the observation of learned Tribunal that both the appeals were filed on 9-7-1992 is not correct as one of the appeal was certainly not filed on 9-7-1992. The learned counsel for the respondents concedes that the observation of learned Tribunal that both the appeals were filed on 9-7-1992 is not correct as only the appeal preferred by Jaffat Abbas before the Tribunal was filed on 9-7-1992 while Zulfiqar Ahmed had submitted his appeal to the Tribunal on 23-8-1993.
13. The learned counsel, however, contended that the appeal filed by Zulfiqar Ahmed on 23-8-1993 before the Tribunal was also within time as the same was submitted within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order of Additional I.-G.P. Dated 22-6-1992. The learned counsel has produced before us the photostat of the endorsement showing the date of delivery of the copy of order dated 22-6-1992 to Zulfiqar Ahmed on 25-7-1992. We are, therefore, of the view that although the appeal preferred by Zulfiqar Ahmed before the Tribunal was filed on 23-8-1993 (not on 9-7-1992 as held by the Tribunal) it was within time from the date of service of the copy of order dated 22-6-1992 on Zulfiqar Ahmed, which was served on him on 25-7-1992.
14. On merits, the learned Tribunal held that the seniority should have been assigned to the appellants and respondents in the same order of merit which was allotted to them on their initial appointment.
15. The moot point for decision in the case is, whether the seniority of appellants and respondents interest is to be settled in accordance with rule 12.2(3) of the Rules or according to rule 8 of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter to be called as the Rules of 1974). Rule 12.2(3) of the Rules and rule 8 of the Rules of 1974 respectively read as follows:-- "12.2(3) ...................................................
16. Seniority, in the case of upper subordinates, will be reckoned in the first instance from date of first appointment, officers promoted from a lower rank being considered senior to persons appointed direct on the same date, and the seniority of officers appointed on the same date being reckoned according to age. Seniority shall, however, be finally settled by dates of confirmation, the seniority inter se of several officers confirmed on the same date being that allotted to them on first appointment. Provided that any officer whose promotion or confirmation is delayed by reason of his being on deputation outside his range or district shall, on being promoted or confirmed, regain the seniority which he originally held vis-a-vis any officer promoted or confirmed before him during his deputation.
17. Rule 8 of Rules of 1974.--(1) The seniority inter se of persons appointed to posts in the same grade in Functional Unit shall be determined--
(a) in the case of persons appointed by initial recruitment in accordance with the order of merit, assigned by the selecting authority provided .That person selected for appointment to the grade in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in a later selection; and
(b) in the case of persons appointed otherwise, with reference to the date of their continuous appointment in the case of two or more persons appointed to the grade is the same, the older if not junior to the younger in the next below grade, shall rank senior to the younger person.
18. Explanation I.--If a person junior in a lower grade is promoted to a higher grade on ad hoc basis, in the public interest, even though continuing later permanently in the higher grade, it would not adversely affect the interest of his seniors in the fixation of his seniority in the higher grade.
19. ExplanationII.--If a person junior in a lower grade is promoted to a higher grade by superseding his senior and subsequently the latter is also promoted, the promoted first shall rank senior to the one promoted subsequently.
20. Explanation III.--Subject to the provisions of rule 14 of these rules, a junior appointed to a higher grade shall be deemed to have superseded his senior only if both the junior and the senior were considered for the higher grade and the junior was appointed in preference to the senior.
(2) The seniority of the persons appointed by initial recruitment to the grade vis-a-vis those appointed otherwise shall be determined with reference to the date of continuous appointment to the grade: Provided that if two dates are the same, the person appointed otherwise shall rank senior to the person appointed by initial recruitment: Provided further that inter se seniority of persons belonging to the same category will not be altered.
21. Explanation.--In case a group of persons is selected for initial appointment at one time, the earliest date on which any one out of the group joined the service will be deemed to be the date of appointment of all persons in the group. Similarly in case a group of persons is appointed otherwise at one time in the same office order the earliest date on which any one out of the group joined the service will be deemed to be the date of appointment of all persons in the group. And the persons in each group will be placed with reference to the continuous date of appointment as a group in order of their inter se seniority.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of this rule, the seniority lists already prepared in accordance with the rules applicable immediately before the commencement of these rules shall be construed as seniority lists for the respective new grades in respect of persons already in service and amendments therein shall continue to be made in accordance with those rules to settle inter se seniority disputes among them."
22. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of I.-G.A., Lahore v. Mushtaq Ahmad Waraich (supra), the question of seniority of appellants and respondents inter se is to be settled in accordance With the provisions of the Rules. The respondents on the other hand contended that there being no specific provision in the Rules to fix seniority of direct recruits inter se in accordance with the merit assigned to them at the time of their initial appointment, rule 8 of the Rules of 1974 applied in the present case. The learned counsel further contended that principle of fairness too required that merits assigned to appellants and respondents at the time of their initial appointment, be adopted as a criteria for determining their seniority inter seas merit alone is the criteria in police service for 'higher promotions.
23. It is well-settled principle of interpretation that whereas general law as well as special law applied to a particular case then to the extent of application of special law in that case the provisions of general law stand displaced. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1974 referred by the learned counsel for the respondents, is a general provision of law applicable to all directly recruited civil servants in Punjab for determining their seniority inter se while rule 12.2(3) of the Rules, which also deals with the same subject, is applicable only to a specific category of civil servants, namely, members of Police Force.
24. Rule 12.2(3) of the Rules, therefore, is a special provision of law while rule 8 of the Rules of 1974 is a general provision of law, both dealing with the same subject. The former being applicable to a specific category of civil servants while the latter is applied to the whole body of civil servants in Punjab. Therefore, if the provision of rule 12.2(3) of the Rules applied to a case, to that extent rule 8 of the Rules of 1974 will be inapplicable. In the case before us, both the appellants and respondents belong to upper subordinate class of police service. They were directly recruited as Sargeant/Inspectors on the same date. They were also confirmed as Sargeant Inspectors, on the same date. Rule 12.2(3) of the Rules lays down the following broad principles for determining the seniority of upper subordinates in the police force:--
(i) The seniority in the first instance to be reckoned from the date of first appointment.
(ii) Officers promoted from a lower rank to be considered senior to a direct recruit of the same date.
(iii) Seniority of officers directly appointed on the same date is to be determined according to their ages, meaning thereby that the officer older in age to rank senior to those younger in age.
(iv) Final settlement of seniority is to be done according to the date of confirmation, meaning thereby that an officer confirmed earlier is to rank senior to those confirmed later.
(v) The inter se seniority of officers confirmed on the same date is to be determined on the basis of seniority allotted to them on their first appointment', and
(vi) Officers whose confirmation or promotion is delayed on account of being on deputation outside his range or district, shall regain their original seniority or promotion on being promoted or confirmed, visa--a-visa the officers confirmed or promoted before him during his absence on deputation.
25. According to above-discussed legal position the appellants and respondents having been recruited and confirmed on the same dates, their seniority was rightly determined under rule 12.2(3) of the Rules by the departmental authority in accordance with their respective ages. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, not justified in disturbing the seniority of appellants and respondents fixed by the department through the impugned order.
26. In the case of I.-G.P., Lahore v. Mushtaq Ahmad Waraich and others, supra, this Court considered the validity of rule 12.2 of the Rules alongwith rule 8(1)(b) of the Rules of 1974 and observed as follows:-- "From the above discussion it is clear that the special law will prevail over the later law of general application. Therefore, rule 12.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, will provide the criterion for determining seniority of the subordinate ranks of Police Force as from the dates of their confirmation and not from the dates of continuous appointment in the grade as laid down in rule 8(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 read with section 7(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. As the date of confirmation of respondents Mushtaq Ahmad Warraich and Arshad Hussain as Inspectors was earlier to the dates of the continuous appointment of respondents, Iqbal Akbar, Muhammad Tahir Ali in the grade of Inspectors, they were, accordingly, senior to them and could not be overlooked for promotion merely because of their 'lowplacement in the seniority according to the wrong principle applied in determining it. I further hold that the rules deemed to be the rules under section 23(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, do not include the Police Rules framed under sections 7 and 46(2) of the Police Act, 1861. In this view of the matter, the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, was not competent to determine the seniority of the Police Officers of the subordinate ranks muchless to hold that they were not entitled for promotion as they were placed 'lowin the seniority list. The reason being that these rules would not be applicable to the Police Force and as such their cases could not be competently referred for determining their eligibility for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In this connection I may point out that the Punjab Service Tribunal was correct in holding that the advice first given by the Law Department to the Government of the Punjab was correct, that is, that the special law continued to govern the Police Force and that it was not repealed by Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, by implication."
27. The ratio laid down by this Court in the case of I.-G. Police, Punjab v. Mushtaq Ahmed Warraich, supra, fully supports our conclusion in the present case. We, accordingly, allow the appeals, set aside the impugned order. We will, however, make no order is to costs in the circumstances of the cases.