MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISSA KHOKHAR, J.- The brief facts of the instant petition are that the pensioners are serving as police constables in Khanewal district under the respondents. They were allowed to participate in the examination for the lower school in 1994. The petitioners alongwith 21 other constables passed the examination. The respondent No. 2 enlisted their names alongwith other 21 constables in list B.l after qualifying the aforesaid examination. This list was sent formal approval of respondent No. 1 (D.I.G. Multan Range, Multan) who approved 21 constables out of the total list for promotion list (B.I) and disapproved the present petitioners vide order dated 30.6.1994. This order shows that all the nine petitioners were awarded either a small fine or censure and these were all minor penalties. The petitioners have challenge the vires of order dated 30.6.1994 being violative of rule 13.8-A of the Pplice Rules, 1934. They have relied on Ch. Yar Muhammad Durraniana v.
Govemment of the Punjab and another (1992 FLC (C.S.) 95) and a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in W.P. No. 2201/90 (Khalid Riaz etc. v. S.S.P., etc.) passed by my learned brother Munir A. Sheikh, J on 9.2.1992.
2. The respondents filed parawise comments. They have admitted in para 2 of the same that the petitioners qualified the examination held for admission to List B.I by the S.P, Khanewal, but admission to list B.I is subject to the approval by the D.I.G, concerned as required by the Police Rules 13.7(2), and that as per the provisions of Police Rules 13.7(1) and 13.7(2), the competitive examination is only one of the criteria besides there must be recommendations by the immediate officer and service record, a character roll clear of any moral stigma and high marks vide Police Rules 13.5.
They have also admitted fhat the D.I.G. Multan Range. Multan after thorough scrutiny of the recora of the petitioners, from S.No. 1 to 6 did not approve their names for admission in list B.L They have appended the record of all the nine petitioners. According to them petitioners No. 7 to 9 were admitted to list B.I by the S.P. Khanewal in violation of instructions mentioned in Police Rules 13.7 that number of the constables admitted to List B.I would not exceed the number sent for the Intermediate Class in any one year so that list B.I examination could be held every year and the eligible constable given the chance each year. So the petitioners No. 7 to 9 were not approved being excess of the numbers sanctioned for each district. They have also objected to the jurisdiction of this Court as according to them the issue pertains to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioners which falls within the purview of the Punjab Service Tribunal.3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the representatives of the respondents in detail and also gone through the list of punishment given to the petitioners. I have also minutely gone through the list and seen that none of the punishments enlisted against the names of the petitioners is a major penalty, It is also admitted by the representative of the respondents that the petitioners do not suffer from any major punishment. Rule 13.5 of the Police Rules relates to promotion to the selection grade of the constables. It provides that no constable shall be promoted to the selection grade of constables unless he is:-
(a) physically up to the required standard (sub-rule 12.16(1),
(b) can read and write simple Urdu sentences and English numerals and
(e) has a character roll clear of any entry carrying a moral stigma.
Condition (a) can be relaxed by Superintendents of Police for goods reasons to be recorded and conditions (b) and (c) can be relaxed by Deputy Inspector-General and the Assistant Inspector- General, Government Railway Police.
Rule 13.7 of the Police Rules relates to the list B.Selection of candidate for admission to courses at the Police Training School. It reads as under:- 13.7. List B (in Form 13.7) shall also be maintained by each Superintendent of Police and shall be divided not two parts:-
(1) Selection grade constables considered suitable as candidates for the Lower School course at the Police Training School.
(2) Constables (selection or time-scale) considered suitable for drill and other special courses at the Police Training School."
This section specifically provides that no constable should be considered eligible for any such course until the entry of his name in list 'B' has been approved by the Deputy Inspector-General of the Range.The disqualification for admission to or retention in Lists A, B, or C is specifically provided in rule 13.8-A it reads as under:- "13.8-A. (1) The infliction of any major punishment shall be a bar to admission to or retention in lists A, B or C, provided that (a) for special reasons to be recorded by the Superintendent in each case, and subject to confirmation by the Deputy Inspector-General, this disqualification may be waived and (b) after six months' continuous good conduct in the case of censure or confinement to quarters or on expiry of the period of reduction in the case of reduction for a specified period, constable may be re-admitted at the discretion of the Superintendent.
(2) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx"
This rule specifically puts a bar to the disqualification for admission to or retention in Lists A, B, or C for the promotion, of the police officials that if there is an inflictation of any major punishment upon any candidate for such promotion that shall be a bar to the admission to or retention in Lists A, B or C, the Superintendent shall record the special reasons in each case and that wall be subject to the confirmation of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police. Even this disqualification can be if the candidate subject to this provision shows six months' continuous goods conduct in the case of censure or confinement to quarters or on expiry of the period of reduction for a specified period, a constable may be readmitted at the discretion of the Superintendent. The law is very clear so far as the promotion of a constable for disqualification for admission to or retention in Lists A, B or C is concerned.
4. As far as the point of jurisdiction of this Court is concerned Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan gives ample power to the High Court to interfere where an act or conduct of a public servant or an authority surpasses the law or his act is violative of the Rules and Regulations.
In the present case the promotion or progress or development are the natural rights of a citizen of Pakistan irrespective of any discrimination. The petitioners were allowed to sit in B.I examination, they have qualified the examination and this qualification was subject to the approval of the concerned authority. After qualifying the examination a right has accrued to the petitioners which could only be taken away if this qualification was contrary to the provisions of Rule 13.8-A of the Police Rules, 1934 in respect of the promotion of the petitioners. The character roll given against the names of each candidate shows a minor fine of Rs. 50/- to Rs. 300/- or just a censure for not serving summons in all these^penalties are very minor and not major in the sense to be hit by the provisions of rule 13.8-A of the Police Rules. If this is the state of affairs, I am afraid that the order of their retention from list 'B' tantamounts to disapproval for promotion, progress or development of the -petitioners for all times. Progress, development and promotion arc eternal rights of citizens of Pakistan. These rights cannot be stopped or retained unless these are contrary to rules and regulations regarding the individual. The order dated 30.6.1994 is not only violative of law, rules and regulations laid down in the Police Rules, 1934 regarding the promotion of the police officials and also violative of the natural justice and equity, hence it is interfered with in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and declared to be passed without lawful authority, jurisdiction and justification by the respondents.
5. In view of the observations made above the instant petition is accepted. The petitioners shall be dealt with in accordance with law and placed in the requisite list 'B' or 'C' as the case may be.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.