This order will also dispose of Intra-Court Appeals Nos. 510, 519, 520, 530, 531, 533, 532, 539, 541, 542, 534, 544, 543, 546, 547, 545, 548, 557, 564, 558, 559, 571 of 1995 and 15 of 1996, as questions of law and facts are common in all of them.
2. Feeling aggrieved of the order passed by the Departmental Authority through which the appellants were reverted to the lower posts, they filed Constitutional petitions, which have been rejected through the impugned orders against which they have filed these Intra-Court Appeals.
3. Learned Advocate-General who has appeared on Court's call at limine stage submitted that under rule 16.29 of the Police Rules, 1934 the appellants have a right to file appeal before the higher departmental authority and against order in the said appeal they have a further right to file revision petition before the Provincial Government under rule 16.32 thereof. The appellants being civil servants according to him have also remedy of filing appeal before the Service Tribunal, therefore, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution to interfere in such matters which relate to their terms and conditions of service being civil servants by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution is barred on account of which this Intra-Court Appeal is also not maintainable under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that some of the appellants were regularly promoted in recognition of their extraordinary performance in service and they have spent more than 10 years. Some of the appellants became P.O.Ws in the last war between Pakistan and India, therefore, to revert them at this stage was not justified.
5. Be that as it may, as pointed out by learned Advocate-General the appellants have remedy of appeal and revision, under rules 16.29 and 16.32 of the Police Miles, 1934 before the high departmental authority. They have also remedy of filing appeal before the Service Tribunal in case they would fail to get their grievance redressed. This Court is not vested with jurisdiction to entertain the Constitutional petitions in such matters as they relate to the terms and conditions of civil servants, as provided in Article 212 of the, Constitution.
6. Rana Muhammad Arif, Advocate, learned counsel submitted that learned Single Judge has made observations in the impugned judgment about the merits of the case of the appellants on account of which neither the higher departmental authorities nor the Service Tribunal will be able to decide the cases of the appellants with free mind uninfluenced by the said findings and observations. The observations if any made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order about the merits of the case are hereby expunged so as to allow the departmental authorities to decide the cases of the appellants uninfluenced by those observations and if the appeal is filed before the Service Tribunal, the Service Tribunal should be able to examine the case on its own merits in accordance with law.
7. Subject to the expungment of the observations on merits in the impugned judgment the appeals being not maintainable are hereby dismissed in limine.
8. In case the appellants file departmental appeals under rule 16.29 of the Police Rules, 1934, the same shall be decided by the concerned authorities within one month on their presentation positively.
H.B.T./M-328/L