SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J.--- This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 10.10.2001, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents , herein, .Was accepted.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondents, herein, were inducted in the Police Service as constables and were awarded selection grades on various dates. However, the Inspector-General of Police passed an order known as Standing Order No. 4/99, dated 5.11.1999 whereby he imposed the condition that the selection grade constables who have crossed the age of 37 years would not be included in the list B-2 and to undergo the special courses linked with promotion. Thus, in consequence of the aforesaid Standing Order; list B-2 was prepared on 18.4.2000 wherein the names of the respondents were not included on- the ground that they had crossed the age of years . The aforesaid standing order and the B-2 list were challenged by way of an appeal. The Service Tribunal accepted their appeal observing that the Police Rules do not envisage any limit of age for being included in list B-2 and, even the amendment through the Government notification dated 11.6.1999, on the basis of which the aforesaid standing order was 'issued by the Inspector-General of Police, did not empower him to issue such an order, i.e. To prescribe age limit of 37 years for being included in list B-2 and to undergo special courses.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Riaz Naveed Butt, Additional Advocate-General, that the Service Tribunal has not correctly interpreted the Government notification dated 11.6.1999 whereby the amendments were made in the Police Rules, 1934. He has submitted that in view of amended sub- rule (4) of rule 13-1, of the Rules, the Inspector-General of Police has been empowered to prescribe promotion list linked with the special training courses and examination which implies that he is fully competent under the amended rule to lay down the aforesaid condition of age for the inclusion in list B-2. The learned counsel has further argued that again by the aforesaid notification, the Inspector-General of Police was empowered under amended sub-rule (2) of rule 13-7 to lay down the conditions of suitability and special courses. According .To the learned counsel, under sub-rule
(4) (amended), the Inspector-General of Police, one of the appellants herein, is fully competent to lay down any conditions for the 'present constitution of the Police Force through standing orders' which clearly means that it was not necessary to mention specifically the nature of the conditions in the aforesaid Government notification; he can lay down any condition, including that of age limit while making reconstitution of any cadre of Police Force. The learned counsel has stressed that the Inspector-General of Police had been given discretion under the amended statutory rules which could not be curtailed on the ground that it was not specifically laid down in the said amended Police Rules as to which of the conditions could be laid down by the Inspector-General of Police.
4. In reply, Mr. M. Tabassum Aftab Alvi, the learned counsel for the respondents, has argued that the notification dated 11.6.1999, issued by the Government in exercise of sub-section (3) of Section 46 of the Police Act, 1'861, has no legal force until and unless it is shown that the said notification was published in the official Gazette. The learned counsel has submitted that amendment in the Rules could be made, by the Government only through a notification which was published in the official Gazette as envisaged under sub-section (2) of Section 46 of the Police Act, 1861. He has contended that the aforesaid amendment in the Rules is of no legal value without publishing of the notification dated 11.6.1999 in the official Gazette. Thus, no standing order could be issued on the basis of the notification dated 11.6.1999. He has further argued that in the written statement it has been admitted by the appellants, herein, that the notification dated 11.6.1999 was, not published in the official Gazette. The learned counsel has further submitted that it was for this reason that the Service Tribunal has set aside the notification whereby the amendment was made in the Rules. The learned counsel has also contended that as the notification dated 11.6.1999 has no legal force, the subsequent order issued by the Inspector-General of Police whereby the respondents' names were deleted from the list ' B-2' is of no legal consequence. He has cited the following authorities in support of his contention.- 1989 CLC 578) it has been held that publication of notification in official Gazette under Section 7 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Wakf Properties Act, 1960 is necessary to make the same effective.
1980 CLC 378) it was held that notification contemplated under Section 6 of the Wakf Properties Ordinance, 1959 would be deemed to be the notification published in official Gazette as stipulated in Section 2(41) of West Pakistan General Clauses Act.
PLD 1971 SC 82) it has been held that notification under Section 3(1) of East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 means notification printed or published in the official Gazette. It was further observed that mere insertion in the official Gazette is not enough that the same was printed. It should be published in a manner usually adopted for publishing such documents.
The learned counsel has further submitted that even if it is assumed that notification, dated 11.6.1999 was valid, the bar of age of the respondents for inclusion in the list ' B-2' could not be imposed by the Inspector-General of Police because there is no specific mention of age in the amending notification dated 11.6.1999.
5. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised at the Bar. It may be observed that as the notification dated 11.6.1999 was not published in the official Gazette as required by sub-section
(2) of Section 46 of the Police Act, 1861, the order issued by the Inspector-General of Police vide Order Book No. 4/99, dated 5.11.1999 is of no legal consequence and hence actions taken on the basis of the said amendment or the Standing Order are of no legal consequence. However, we may observe here that the Service Tribunal was not correct in holding that had the amendment in the Rules been validly made after publishing the notification dated 11.6.1999 in the official Gazette even then the bar of age imposed by the Inspector-General of Police in the present case would have been without jurisdiction. We may observe that the reading of amending order dated 11.6.1999 clearly shows that conditions suitable ' for drill and other special courses' can also be prescribed by the Inspector-General of Police particularly; word ' drill' in the said notification does not leave any doubt that age limit could be prescribed in aforesaid notification. .