' JAVED IQBAL, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against judgment, dated 24-4-1998 whereby appeals filed by the respondents have been accepted and resultantly the Government was directed to promote them by reverting the petitioners.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents joined service as Police Inspector (B-16) in the year 1985-1986. A seniority list was circulated according to which the respondents namely Abdul Baqi and Zahid Ali were shown at Serial Nos.18 and 21 respectively. As a result of a few vacant vacancies of Deputy Superintendent of Police against promotion quota the names of deserving eligible candidates were sent by the Inspector-General of Police to the Provincial Selection Committee through Home Department, Government of Balochistan. The eligible candidates were considered and out of panel consisting of eight Inspectors the following were recommended for promotion against the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police:--
(1) Abdul Karim Kurd.
(2) Sona Khan.
(3) Ashiq Hussain Jamali.
(4) Abdul Baqi.
(5) Zahid Ali Badini.
' Mir Zafarullah Jamali the then Chief Minister without assigning any reason did not agree with the recommendations of the Selection Committee and directed to promote the following as Deputy Superintendent of Police:--
(1) Abdul Samad Umrani.
(2) Abdul Karim Kurd.
(3) Sona Khan.
(4) Abdul Baqi.
(5) Ashfaq Hussain Jamali.
4. It is to be noted that the then Secretary to Chief Minister further at his own without having any locus standi and lawful authority modified the recommendations of Selection Committee by deleting the name of Abdul Baqi and the name of one Hayatullah Khan Inspector was incorporated vide order, dated 26-1-1997 and in pursuant thereof Home Department, Government of Balochistan issued the notification concerning the promotion of abovenamed Inspectors on 28-1-1997. Being aggrieved the respondents submitted their representations to the Chief Minister on 25-1-1997 and 28-2-1997 which could not be decided and resultantly the Balochistan Service Tribunal was approached by means of appeal which was accepted and Provincial Government was directed to promote the respondents.
5. It is mainly contended by Raja M. Afsar, Advocate-onRecord/Advocate Supreme Court who appeared on behalf of petitioners that Chief Minister being Executive Head of the Province was fully competent to make such promotions and no illegality or irregularity whatsoever has been committed by ignoring the recommendations of Selection Committee. It is next contended that the Chief Minister was competent to do so under the Balochistan Government Rules of Business, 1976. It is argued with vehemence that the appeal preferred by the respondents was hopelessly time- barred by three months and learned Balochistan Service Tribunal was not competent to entertain the same without any lawful justifiable excuse which was badly lacking. It is contended that recommendations of the Selection Committee were not Binding on the Government and thus, the appointments made by the Home Department, Government of Balochistan, cannot be declared as illegal or unlawful. It is also argued that the appeal before Balochistan Service Tribunal was not competent.
6. Mr. Salahuddin Mengal, Advocate Supreme Court appeared for respondents and contended that the petitioners were never recommended by the Selection Committee and hence the question of their promotion does not arise as neither the Rules of Business nor relevant appointment rules confer any such power upon the Chief Minister. It is also mentioned that prescribed procedure has been violated by the Chief Minister without having any lawful authority and accordingly the promotion of the petitioners was unlawful.
7. We have carefully examined the respective contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioners in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. We have minutely gone through the judgments passed by learned Balochistan Service Tribunal. Let we mention here at the outset that the then Chief Minister was not authorised to make any such promotion in view of the categoric provisions as made in the Balochistan Deputy Superintendent of Police Service Rules, 1978. In this regard Rule 6 can be mentioned concerning with the method of initial recruitment and promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police which is reproduced herein-below for ready reference:- "6. Method of recruitment.----(1) Recruitment to the service shall be made in the following manner:---
(a) 50% of the vacancies in the service shall be filled by initial recruitment on the recommendations of the Commission.
(b) 50% of the vacancies in the service shall be filled by promotion from among Inspectors of Police on the recommendations of the Selection Authority.
(2) The Inspector-General of Police shall maintain a Select List in Form I appended to these rules of Inspectors who are considered fit for promotion to the service in the respective Branch. The Select List shall be in parts; and each part shall appertain to a separate branch.
(3) Recruitment to the Service by promotion shall be made from among Inspectors whose names appear in the Select List maintained in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) for branch in which the vacancies occur.
(4) No entry shall be made in the Select List to be maintained under the provisions of this rule, nor shall an entry appearing therein be removed or the order in which the names appear in it be altered without the previous approval of the Selection Authority.
(5) When an appointment is to be made from among persons whose names appear in the Select List, the order in which the names appear in the Select List shall, as far as possible be followed."
A bare perusal of the above mentioned rule would reveal that a mechanism has been evolved regarding initial recruitment and by way of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by allocating 50% of quota to each category. It is also provided that such promotion shall be made from amongst the Inspectors whose names are placed in the Select List required to be prepared by the Inspector-General of Police as enshrined in sub-rule (2) of Rule 6. It is worth mentioning that the Selection List has its own significance and no alteration or modification can be made therein without having the prior approval of Selection Authority constituted under rule 5 of the Balochistan Deputy Superintendent of Police Service Rules, 1978 and "means a Selection Committee consisting of Chief Secretary as its Chairman, Home Secretary and Inspector-General as its members, on the recommendations of or in consultation with which the Government may make appointment of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Balochistan against the vacancies specified in sub-rule (b) of rule 6(1)". It is worth mentioning that no change or modification whatsoever was got made in the Selection List by adopting the methodology as provided under the said rules and accordingly the question of promotion of any Inspector who was not in the Selection List does not arise.
8. We have not been persuaded to agree with Raja Muhammad Afsar, Advocate Supreme Court that rule 18 of Balochistan Government Rules of Business, 1976, empowers the Chief Minister to make such promotion for the simple reason that no such authority has been conferred upon the Chief Minister by the provisions as contained in rule 18 of the Balochistan Government Rules of Business, 1976 pertaining to "Constitution of Selection Board" which is reproduced as under:- "18. (1) Appointments and promotions to the posts specified in Schedule III, unless filled through the Public Service Commission, shall be made on the advice of a Selection Board to be constituted by the Government.
(2) In addition to the Selection Board specified in sub-rule (1) the Government may constitute one or more Selection Boards, and specify the appointment and promotions to posts, other than those specified in Schedule III, or which are to be made on the advice of the Public Service Commission, to be made on the advice of such Selection Boards.
(3) The Minister-in-Charge of a Department may send a case back to a Selection Board as constituted under sub-rules (1) and (2) for reconsideration if he does not agree with the recommendations made by such Selection Board. If the different of opinion persists, the case shall be submitted to the Chief. Minister through the Services and General Administration Department."
9. A careful analysis of the said rule would reveal that a procedure for appointment/promotion has been prescribed which cannot be disturbed by any one including the Chief Minister. The only option available for the Chief Minister was to invoke the provisions as contained in Rule 18(3) read with rule 21(v) through the Minister concerned.
10. In view of what has been mentioned hereinabove we are of the considered opinion that the Chief Minister was not empowered to reverse the recommendations of the Selection Committee and his Secretary was absolutely not authorised to make any deletion, amendment or insertion as has been done by him in the recommendations of Selection Committee. The Chief Minister and his Secretary have exercised their authority arbitrarily having no legal sanctity at all.
11. In the light of what has been stated above we do not find any merit in the petitions (Civil Petition No,111-Q of 1998 and Civil Petition No,116-Q of 1998) and, therefore, not inclined to grant leave in the said petitions which are accordingly dismissed.