Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 257 of 1980, heard on 30th January, 1982.

(On appeal from the order dated 6‑3‑1979 of the Lahore High Court passed in I. C. A. No. 231 of 1979).

-----Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Orders of High Court not clear on point whether only one list i.e., 'B' Part I maintained or two lists, i.e., 'B' and 'B‑l'‑Interpretation of statutory rule involved in case also effecting a large number of employees of Police department, leave to appeal granted to settle issue.‑[Leave to appeal].

‑‑ Rr. 13.6 & 13.7‑Entry in list 'B'‑Value of‑Jurisdiction in adminis tration matters particularly in Police organization-‑Cannot be construed in strict or technical sense‑Supervision in Police Organisation- Prescribed at every level over acts of subordinates‑Superintendent of Police only to maintain lists under rr. 13.6 & 13.7 but under control of his superiors‑Police constables not considered eligible for course at Police Training School until their names in list 'B' approved by D. I. G. of Range concerned‑Person even if brought on list 'B' cannot take advantage of such entry unless entry approved by D. I. G.‑[Jurisdic tion‑Civil service].

--Rr. 13.6 & 13.7‑Deputy Inspector‑General of Police charged with duty and responsibility to check up in course of their visits to districts rules and procedures being carefully observed and followed‑Examination conducted found vitiated on account of serious irregularities, Deputy Inspector‑General, held, competent and under duty to set it at naught and principle of locus poenitentiae not applicable to case.‑[Locus poenitentiae].

Ch. Mohammad Abdus Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court with Mohammad Aslam Chaudhary, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

S. M. Zubair, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on -Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 30th January, 1982.

‑The appellants, who are Foot Constables in the Police Department, were brought from List 'A' to List 'B' upon the basis of the result of a written examination held for the purpose. The Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, however, on finding that the examination suffered from wide‑spread malpractices cancelled the same, with the result that the selection of the appellants was undone. They challenged the Departmental action through a constitutional petition but the same was disposed of by a learned Judge with the observation that their names had been removed from List 'B‑1' only and not from List 'B'. The appellants, thereupon, preferred an Intra‑Court appeal on the ground that their names could not be removed even from List 'B‑1'. The appeal was also dismissed with the observation that "the entire examination has been cancelled and thereupon disappeared entitlement of the appellants to remain on the list". In regard to the list, the learned Judges of the appeal Bench made mention of only List B, Part I. The appellants came to this Court in a petition for grant of leave to appeal. As it was not clear from the orders of the High Court whether there was one list i.e., 'B Part‑I' or two lists, i.e. 'B' and 'B‑1' and as the interpretation of statutory rules affecting a large number of employees of the Police Department was involved, leave was granted to settle the issue.

2. Admittedly, the appellants had been, before the examination, in List 'A'. This list is maintained under Rule 13.6 of the Police Rules for promotion to the selection grade. The Foot Constables in List 'A' have to pass an examination prescribed for the purpose by the Inspector‑General of Police under Standing Order No. 119, dated 6‑1‑1954, in order to be on List 'B'. This list is maintained under rule 13.7 by the Superintendent of Police of the Constables so selected, for promotion to courses at the Police Training School. It is divided into two parts, i.e: ‑

"(1) Selection grade cons' tables considered suitable as candidates for the Lower School course at the Police Training School.

(2) Constables (selection or time scale) considered suitable for drill and other special courses at the Police Training School."

3. There is thus only one list, i.e., List 'B', which is maintained in two parts as prescribed by rule 13.7. This is not controverted by learned counsel for the appellants who asserts that they had been brought on List B', Part I, from which list their names have been removed in pursuance of the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police's Order. His contention it two fold, i.e.‑ '

(1) As the list was maintained by the Superintendent of Police, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police had no jurisdiction to undo the same ; and

(2) once the result of the ;examination had ,been implemented and, the appellants brought on List B', : Part I, their names could not be removed from that, list without notice to the affected persons.

4. Jurisdiction in administrative matters cannot be construed iii a strict or technical sense, particularly in the Police organization where supervision is prescribed at every level over the acts of the subordinates It is, therefore difficult to accept that the Superintendent of Police in the discharge of his duties on the general administrative side is totally independent of the super vision of his superior. In fact the Organization is not constituted into watertight hierarchical levels, such that one level cannot interfere with the level below it. This is clear from, section 2 of the Police Act which lays down that "The entire Police‑establishment under a Provincial Government shall, for the purposes of this Act; be deemed to be one Police force To the same purpose is the provision of section 4 of the Act which says :‑‑

"The administration of the Police throughout a general Police District shall be vested its an Officer to be styled the Inspector‑General of Police and in such Additional Inspector‑General, Deputy Inspector‑General and Assistant Inspector‑General and the Provincial Government shall seem fit."

The Superintendent of Police under rules 13, and 13.7 is only to "main tain" the lists but there is nothing to slow that in this matter he is not subject to the supervisory control of his superiors, In fact he is very much subject to such supervision because rules 13.7 which relates to List B' lays down that selection shall bye made from this list as vacancies our for admission to the courses concerned at the Police Training School provided that no constable shall be considered eligible for any such course until the entry to his name in List. B' has been approved by the Deputy Inspector General of the Range". . Thus even if a person is brought on List B',, he can tale no advantage of it unless the entry of his name in that list is approved by the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police. Rule 13.13 gives further power of control to the Deputy Inspector‑General. It reads:

"Apart from the special requirements of the foregoing rules regarding the confirmation or revision of orders Deputy. Inspector‑General are required to pay special attention at their inspection to the working of lists A, B, C and by Superintendents they have authority to remove any name which they consider has been improperly admitted and to give such orders as may be expedient in respect of the methods of selection and the tests applied."

In the matter of examinations, the Deputy Inspectors‑General of the Rang have even been charged by the Inspector‑General of Police with the duty and responsibility "to check up in the course of their visits to Districts that the rules and procedure laid down is carefully observed and followed in Districts". See addendum (No. 18104‑133B) dated 23‑10‑1954) to the I. G. s Standing Order No. 119, dated, 6‑1‑1954. If therefore, the examinations was vitiated on account of serious irregularities the Deputy Inspector‑General was: competent and under a duty to set, it at naught.

5. The argument that the principle' of locus poenitentiae was not applicable after the result of the examination bad been implemented, ha no force here. It is not the Deputy Inspectors-General who had implemented the result of the examination. In view of the specific duty' assigned to him he had to take the corrective action on being satisfied that the examination stood vitiated.

6. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.