' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The petitioner was recruited as a Constable on 18-12-1969.
According to him he started approaching the higher police officers with a request that his name be placed in list B-I on being placed on which list a Constable becomes eligible for promotion. As per his submissions he kept petitioning different authorities in the Police Department but remained unsuccessful. He ultimately reached the Punjab Service Tribunal for the purpose and his appeal was dismissed by the said Tribunal through a judgment dated 29-12-1998 on the ground that it could not be successfully established before the said Tribunal that the Superintendent of Police had not performed his obligations of publicizing the notice regarding the holding of the requisite test for being placed on list B-I and consequently on the ground that under the Departmental Rules such a test could be taken by a Police constable only up to the age of 33 years and that the petitioner had since long crossed that stage.
3. The A.I.G. (Legal) present in Court on behalf of the Police Department submits that the petitioner was now 54 years of age which fact is not denied by the petitioner. It is not explained on record as to why the petitioner kept silent for almost two decades after crossing the said age of 33 years before approaching the Service Tribunal for the relief in question. It was found by the Service Tribunal from the report submitted by the concerned Superintendent that he had publicized the fact of holding of the test in question and had even informed all the Borrowing Authorities and Officers so that the matter in question could be brought to the notice of all A the eligible constables. The fact that two other constables had been brought on B-I list without requisite test is hardly a justification for any Court of law to direct a similar thing in the case of the petitioner. In the first place we are not seized of the circumstances in which the said two constable had been brought on B-1 list and if the same had been done in violation of the law then it would be hardly a precedent for a Court of law to follow.
4. A petition is competent before this Court only if a substantial question of law for public importance is disclosed in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. No such question could be shown to exist in this matter. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.