Find a Lawyer

Case No. 360/296 of 1983.

‑‑ Promotion‑Police constable claiming to be brought on List B‑I--Examination for admission to List B‑I passed‑Only ten constables on merit required to brought on List B‑I‑Appellant figuring at merit No. 17‑Service Tribunal, in circumstances, refusing to inter fere in order of competent authority to not admitting in List B‑I-- Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4.

Appellant in person.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

Abdul Majid Constable No. 264, of Mianwali District, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Sargodha Range, Sargodha and Superin tendent of Police, Mianwali, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that respondents be directed that his name be brought on the List B‑I from the date he was so declared successful.

3. I have heard the appellant in person as well as the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and find that an examination for admission to promotion list B‑I was held on 25th April, 1982 and 26th April,. 1982 in the district under the supervision of Examina tion Board constituted by the D. I. G./S. R. Sargodha. The Board was con sisted of Messrs Ch. Abdul Ghafar P. D. S. P. Jhang, Pervaiz Ahmad Lodhi, P. I. Summandri, and Rana Iftikharuddin, P. I. Sargodha and P. S. I. Jehan Zeb of Sargodha. 50 Constables appeared in, the said examination from Sargodha District who had undergone written test in the following three subjects :‑

(1) General knowledge.

(2) General Law and Local and Special Law.

(3) Police Rules.

An unfortunate incident occurred that Mr. Amar Yassir, Range Auditor, Range Office, Sargodha who appeared in the room without permission and requested the President of the Board that Constable Abdul Majid may be favoured while marking the papers as he was becoming overage. He was assured that no undue favour will be shown which annoyed the said Auditor who went out. Leaving aside this above unfortunate incident the appellant's name was entered at serial No. 17 of the merit list and only 14 Constable were admitted on list B.‑I, including 4 Constables of District Bhakkar who had appeared in the examination, prior to bifurcation of newly‑created district Bhakkar. In these circumstances, only 10 Constables were required to be admitted to list B.‑I, in accordance with the contents of Range Standing Order No. 1/78, therefore, the appellant whose name figured at Serial No. 17 of the merit list could not be admitted to promotion list.

4. In view of the established facts on the record, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.

M. Y. M. 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.