1. ' ABDUL MAJID KHANZADA (CHAIRMAN).---Brief facts of this appeal are that the appellant was appointed as junior clerk in Range Office of Karachi Police on regualr basis in the year 1990.
2. Thereafter, appellant applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, through proper channel and his application was recommended by the Deputy-InspectorGeneral of Police on 17-1- 1991. The Inspector-Genenral of Police, Sindh, Karachi on 27-6-1991 approved change of cadre and ordered the appellant to undergo A.S.Is. Basic training course at Shandadpur. As such the appellant was relieved and he joined the Training School Shandadpur vide order dated 27-6-1991, while appellant was under training at Sahhdadpur the comments were called from the Deputy Inspector-General of Police as to the fitness of the appellant as A.S.-I. With the direction that the appellant should appear before the Inspector-General of Police vide order, dated 7-8-1991. As such the appellant appeared before the Inspector-General of Police, such intimation was sent to the Principal of P.T.S., Shandadpur vide T.P.M. By the Inspector-General of Police. That the appellant appeared before him and he found him fit and allowed to continue his training. That the L-G.P., Sindh, Karachi vide his order, dated 4-9--1991 changed the cadre of the appellant from junior clerk to that of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. That on 6-10-1991 Senior Superintendent of Police, District South Karachi appoined the appellant as A.S.-I. That the appellant completed his training.
3. That on 12-1-1993 Inspector-General of Police, Sindh issued show-cause notice to the appellant to which he replied on 23-1-1993. The Inspector-General of Police, Sindh on 18-8-1994 cancelled the order, dated 27-6-1991, as such the appellant was reverted to his original rank of junior clerk. That the appellant preferred a review petition before the respondent which was considered and filed by respondent on 20-9-1995. As such he filed the present appeal.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan and Mr. Syed Muhammad Sayedain Zaidi, A.A.-G., for the respondents.
5. ' The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was appointed on regular basis in 1990 and has applied through proper channel for the post of A.S.-I. He has argued that the order dated 4-9-1991 and 6-10-1991 are independent and have not been recalled.
6. He has also argued that the same authority cannot recall/review the order of his predecessors. He has relied on 1992 PLC (C.S.) p. 43 relevant page 46. He has also relied on 1994 PLC (C.S.) p.
449. He has also relied on 1985 PLC (C.S.) p.133 p.136, 1996 SCM R p.1350, 1981 SCM R p.523, 1990 SCMR 1990 p.1414, 1991 PLC (C.S.) 973, NLR 1990 SC p.92 and NLR 1987 SC p.70.
7. ' Mr. Zaidi has supported the order of the respondent and has further pointed out that there is no provision of change of cadre in Police Department and change of cadre can be on the same grade. According to him the junior clerk is an employee of the Police Department of Grade-5 while A.S.-I. Is of Grade-9 as such it cannot be a simple change of cadre. According to him order, dated 27-6-1991 clearly shows that it is change of cadre and not a fresh appointment. He has further pointed out that the order, dated 17-8-1991 also clearly indicates that it is a change of cadre. He has further argued that a fresh appointment cannot be made unless the post is properly advertised. Here, according to him no procedure was adopted in the appointment of appellant from Junior Clerk to A.S.-I. Even in the application submitted by the appellant it not marked nor there is any inward or outward number, nor there is any remarks on the application. He has further argued that a void order can be reviewed and withrawn at any time. He has argued that there is no prohibition in the Police Rules that one I.-G. Cannot withdraw the order of outgoing I.-G.P. He has relied on 1992 PLC p.
8. 1010. He has further pointed out that appellant has even not resigned from the post of junior clerk and he is still in service as a junior clerk. According to him if it would have been a fresh appointment, the appellant should have first resigned from the post of junior clerk. According to him he cannot be employed on two posts in one department. He relied on 1987 PLC (C.S.) p.668.
9. According to him there is no provision in the Police Rules for the change of cadre. As such he has prayed that the appeal be dismissed as merits no consideration.
10. ' We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent and with their assistance have also perused the record.
11. ' The order dated 4-9-1991 reads as under:-- "Cadre Change in the Rank of A.S.-I. And Course.---The cadre of Junior Clerk Nisar Ahmed of Karachi Range (now undergoing A.S.-Is'. Training at PTS, Shandadpur) stands changed to that of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police from the date he joined PTS, he will remain posted in Karachi and should continue to undergo A.S.Is'. Basic Training Course at PTS, Shandadpur."
12. 'The letter dated 17-8-1991 also shows change of cadre in the rank of A.S.-I. Since there is no provision of change of cadre in the Police Rules as such it can be a fresh appointment.
13. ' If we consider it a fresh appointment, we find that for a fresh appointment to the post of A.S.-L, formalities have not been observed as such the post should have been advertised, a committee for selection of the candidates should have been constituted etc., which has not been done here.
14. Appellant who was working in Grade-5 as Junior Clerk was appointed as A.S.-I. In Grade-9 only on a simple application of appellant, which shows a great favour without assigning any good reason.
15. According to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Human Right Case No,104 of 1992 which read as under:-- "While inquiring into various complaints of violation of fundamental/Human Rights, it has been found that the Federal Government, Provincial Governments, Statutory Bodies and the Public Authorities have been making initial recruitments, both ad hoc and regular to posts and offices without publicly and properly advertising the vacancies and at times by converting ad hoc appointments into regular appointments. This practice is prima facie violative of Fundamental- Rights (Article 18 of the Constitution) guaranteeing to every citizen freedom of profession.
16. ' Subject to notice to all concerned, and subject to final orders after full hearing in the matter, it is ordered as an interim measure that the violation of this Fundamental/Human Right shall be discontinued forthwith.
17. ' Steps shall immediately be taken to rectify, so as to bring the practice in accord with the Constitutional requirement.
18. 'We are, therefore, of the considered view that it is not a fresh appointment but a change of cadre .
19. Since there is no provision of change of cadre in the Police Rules, we find no justification to interfere with the order dated 27-6-1991. This appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.