Find a Lawyer

Case No. 206/221 of 1983, decided on 5th July. 1984.

‑‑ S. 4(I)(b) ‑ Jurisdiction of Tribunal ‑ Promotion matter-- Discrimination in ignoring from due consideration‑Objection as to jurisdiction of Tribunal‑Not of significance‑Prosecuting Sub ''Inspector (appellant) having cleared Departmental Examination with credit and possessing requisite length of service refused to be considered for enrolment to List F" and promotion as Prosecuting Inspector alongwith juniors ‑ Impugned action, in circumstances, held, discriminatory and arbitrary ‑ Tribunal accepting appeal and directing appellant's consideration for promotion from date juniors promoted.

Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab v. Ashfaq Ahmad 1983 S C M R 34 rel. "

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Appellant.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEINBER)

, ‑ Muhammad Sadiq Sajid, Prosecuting Sub‑Inspector, Lahore has made this appeal under section .4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the D. I.‑G. Police, Lahore, Range, Lahore and I.‑G. Police, Punjab, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal; the appellant has prayed that .the impugned orders, dated 25th April, 1983 and 28th April, 1983 in so far as these deny promotion/consideration for promotion of appellant to List 'F' as well as to rank of P. I be set aside. It has also been prayed that respondents be directed to consider the appellant for appointment to List F' as well as promotion/pro forma promotion as Prosecuting Inspector from the date from which his juniors have been so promoted.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was recruited as P. S. I. w.e.f. 16th April, 1976. He qualified the P. S. 1. examination in the year 1978. He again appeared in the P. S. I.'s examination in February, 1982 and qualified the same with credit and thus he became eligible for enrolment in List F' alongwith his juniors. Though he had qualified the P. S. L's examination with credit before the impugned orders dated 25th April, 1983 and 28th April. 1983 were issued, yet he was not considered for enrolment for List "F" with his juniors. When the appellant passed his P. S. I. examination with credit on .7th April, 1982 he immediately submitted application; dated 18th April, 1982 in which he submitted that he fulfilled both the conditions of 5 years' service and passing departmental examination with credit, therefore, his name may also be sent to the I‑G. Police, Punjab for bringing him on List F' alongwith his juniors. However, his case was not sent by the D. I.‑G. and in the meantime P. S. Is. who were juniors to him were brought on List F by order, dated 25th April, 1983 and were promoted by subsequent order dated 28th April, 1983 issued by the I.‑G. Police, Punjab. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.‑G. Humayun, learned District Attorney assisted with the help of the Department.

5. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that recommendations were made by the D.I.‑G., Lahore Range, Lahore to the Inspector‑General of Police for promotion of P. S. Is. to List 'F' and as P. Is. who had cleared the departmental examination with credit. These recommendations were made in February, 1982, The appellant also cleared the examination with credit on 7th April, 1982. He immediately applied that his name may also be considered for promotion to List F' and promotion as P. I., as he had cleared the departmental examination with credit. However, this application remained pending with the D. I.‑G. who refused to send the recommendation vide order, dated 8th June, 1982 without ,any sound reason. This resulted in miscar riage of justice and discrimination and the appellant was ignored un necessarily for promotion without any fault of his. It has been further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the appellant applied for the above consideration in the month of April, 1982 the case of the appellant's juniors was decided in April, 1983 i.e. after one year. Thus, on the face of it the appellant has been ignored for just promotion due to the wrong decision of the D. I.‑G. It seems that proper mind was not applied by the D. I.‑G. when his application was rejected. It has been also submitted by appellant's counsel that in a similar case of P. S. I. Ghulam Ahmad Bhatti of the same Range, he passed the departmental examination in September, 1982 i.e. six months later than the appellant, however, his name was immediately forwarded by the same D. L‑G. with the result that his name was included in the aforesaid orders and he was promoted as P.‑ I. Thus, ignoring the name of the appellant for bringing him on List 'F' and prometion as P. I. Is discriminatory, unjust and unlawful. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon Supreme Court's decision reported as Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab v. Ashfaq Ahmad (1983 S C M R 34). He has contended that the Supreme Court had deprecated the discrimination in the matter of promotion and bad upheld the Tribunal's decision on this score alone.

6. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has relied on the para-wise comments submitted by the respondents and has submitted that the appellant has been ignored from the promotion list and as P. I. after giving full justification by the respondents. The impugned orders are correct, lawful and no exception can be taken against these.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have perused the record of this case carefully. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the appellant that when the appellant had cleared the departmental examination with credit in April, 1982 there was no justification for the D. I.‑G. to withhold the name of the appellant and not to forward the same to the Inspector‑General of Police otherwise his name would also have been brought on List 'F' alongwith his juniors anti be should have been promoted as P. I. as well. This sort of treatment is inconsistent keeping in view that the name of Mr. Ghulam Ahmad Bhatti P. S. I. was forwarded to the I.‑G. by the D. I.‑G. as late as September, 1982 and as a result thereof his name was included in the Lists circulated by orders, dated 25th April, 1983 and 28th April, 1983. This has rendered the earlier action of D. I.‑G. in withholding the appellant's recommenda tions as discriminatory and arbitrary, The D. I.‑G. Police, Lahore Range, Lahore should have recommended the name of the appellant to the I.‑G. Police for consideration as was done in the case of other officer junior to him. We also agree with the view‑point of the learned counsel for the appellant that this case is at par with the case of L‑G. Police v. Ashfaq Ahmad, decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In that case also discrimination was observed in the matter of promotion of Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad viz‑a‑viz his junior Mr. Shah Mahmood. This Tribunal held that Ashfaq Ahmad would be deemed to be promoted to List F' from the date his junior was so promoted. It was contended by the Government side in the Supreme Court of Pakistan that this Tribunal had no jurisdic tion in this matter but it was held by the Supreme Court that in view of discrimination observed in this matter, the objection has no significance, accordingly, the judgment of this Tribunal was upheld on the point of discrimination.

8. The upshot of the above analysis of the case is that the respondent are directed to consider the appellant for promotion to List F' from 22nd April, 1983 (as ordered vide impugned order dated 25th April, 1983) and' as P. I. from the date from which his next junior was so promoted so that no injustice is done with the appellant.

A. E. Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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