Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 35‑R of 1985, decided on 23rd April, 1986.

(Against the judgment and order, dated 25‑10‑1984 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 118(R) of 1983).

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 8‑‑Police Service of Pakistan (Cadre and Composition) Rules, 1969‑‑Seniority‑‑Petitioner pre‑selected for Police service in 1969, graduated in 1971 and finally selected through Public Service Commission in 1972 claiming seniority/ entry into service to be antedated‑‑Seniority or induction into service in case of initial recruitment cannot be taken to a date earlier to actual selection or taking over of post.

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), Ss. 3 & 8‑‑Seniority, prospects of‑‑Not included in terms and conditions of service‑‑‑Effect‑‑ Petitioner accepting appointment in Grade‑17, objecting to recruitment policy/claiming seniority in Grade‑18 after he himself was promoted to that grade‑‑Objection, held, was not tenable, prospects of his promotion having not been included in terms and conditions of his service.

Government of West Pakistan v. Fida Muhammad Khan P L D 1960 S C (Pak.) 45 and Government of West Pakistan v. Mr. Fateh Ullah Khan P L D 1960 S C (Pak.) 105 ref.

‑‑‑S. 9‑‑Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973, Rr. 6 & 8‑‑Procriotion‑‑Requirement of 5 years' minimum service in Grade‑17 for becoming eligible for promotion to Grade‑18, challenged as ultra vires of Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑Prime Minister who was competent authority for making appointment to Grade‑18 having approved condition of five years‑‑Such condition, held, was quite consistent with R. 8.

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss. 4 & 5‑‑Disposal of appeals by common order, challenged‑‑Several appeals, not heard at one station nor at one time nor consolidated except for purposes of disposal by common order‑‑Plea that petitioner's case had not received that individualised attention which it required, repelled‑‑Manner of disposal of appeal by Service Tribunal could not be objected to as admittedly common questions of law arose in those appeals.

B.A. Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

The petitioner, a civil servant belonging to the Police Group, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 25th October, 1984 whereby his appeal was dismissed.

In 1970 and near about the recruitment to the Police Service of Pakistan was governed by the Police Service of Pakistan (Cadre and Composition) Rules, 1969. As a result of the decision taken in Governor's conference on 15‑12‑1966 a new mode of recruitment to the Police Service of Pakistan was introduced and it was formalised by a letter, dated 3‑4‑1968 addressed to the Chief Secretaries of the Provinces. It was under this system that the petitioner was pre‑selected in 1969 and got admitted to the Government College, Lahore, for his graduation. The Public Service Commission finally selected him after graduation on 26‑12‑1972. He started service in Grade‑17 and was later called Upon to perform the duties in the higher grade N.P.S.‑18 as from 28‑6‑1976 in his own pay and grade and was regularly promoted to that grade on 27‑12‑1977 on completion of 5 years' service in Grade‑17. A provisional seniority list of the Police Officers was circulated on 28‑10‑1980 wherein the petitioner was shown at a lower position than he considered to be his due place. He represented against it and getting no response brought the matter to the Service Tribunal.

The grievances of the petitioner were as follows:‑

(i) Public Service Commission delayed by a year his selection to Police Service of Pakistan so his entry/seniority be antedated to 1971.

(ii) Contrary to the understanding the Government continued recruitment to P.S.P. through Central Superior Services competitive examination during the years 1970 to 1972 and these selected were given seniority over petitioner.

(iii) Lateral entry of officers into P.S.P. from armed forces prior to 5th July, 1977 was against law and those so inducted could not be given seniority over the petitioner.

(iv) Provincial Service Police Officers could not be promoted in excess of their one‑third quota and those promoted in excess of their quota could not compete in seniority with the petitioner.

(v) The requirement of five years minimum service in Grade‑17 for becoming eligible for promotion to Grade‑18 was ultra vires Civil Servants Act.

The Service Tribunal by a consolidated order rejected the appeal. This procedure of disposal of his appeal has further aggrieved the petitioner. According to him, other appeals were not heard at one station, nor at one time, nor were consolidated except for the purposes of disposal by a common order and in this manner the petitioner's case has not received that individualized attention which it required or deserved.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that none of the grounds is tenable. The new recruitment policy, dated 3rd April, 1968 did contain the recital that "the vacancies occurring in Police Service of Pakistan in 1970 will be filled according to the new method and the old method of recruitment will discontinue" but then this was of the term and condition of service of the petitioner because the petitioner entered service in December, 1972. Similarly he cannot claim an right to be selected forthwith on completion of Graduation in 1971. In case of initial recruitment seniority or induction into service cannot be taken to a date earlier to actual selection or taking over of the post Similarly, the petitioner cannot, while in Grade‑17 object to recruitment police in Grade‑18 because the prospects of his promotion are not 'included in the terms and conditions of his service a;, held by this Court in Government of West Pakistan v. Fida Muhammad Khan PLD 190 SC (Pak.) 45, Government of West Pakistan v. Mr. Fateh Ullah Khan P L D 1960 SC (Pak. ) 105 etc. This object he cannot achieve indirectly by submitting to such recruitments when made but claiming their ouster and exclusion from the cadre/group and seniority over them after he was himself promoted to Grade‑18.

It is not the case of the petitioner that recruitment from the Armed Forces/Provincial Police were not appointed by the competent Authority His objection is that their appointment was not in accordance with the rules. In advantage these grounds what has been ignored is Rule 4 (iii) of Federal Police Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1973 and rule 8 of Civil Service (Change in Nomenclature of Services and Abolition of Classes) Rules, 1973. If these rules are kept in view and given full effect the appointments made by competent Authority from these two sources would appear not to be violative of any rule or law in the field.

The requirement of five years service in Grade‑17 for establishing eligibility for promotion to Grade‑18 finds a place at page 132 (Estacode 1979). The object to it is that the Prime Minister has approved it and not the President who is the rule‑making authority and secondly that it is not provided for either in Civil Servants Act or Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The Prime Minister is the Competent Authority (Rule 6) for making appointments to Grade‑18. Rule 8 provides "only such persons as possess the qualifications and meet the conditions laid down for the purpose of promotion are to be considered by Promotion Committee. The Prime Minister having approved, the condition of five years service will prevail and it will be quite consistent with Rule 8.

The manner of disposal of appeal by the Service Tribunal cannot be objected to as admittedly common questions of law arose in those appeals. Leave to appeal is refused.

M. I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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