2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IJAZ AHMAD, J.

This constitutional petition has been filed by the police constables serving in the Department of Punjab Police, District Attock.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that a constable before earning promotion to the rank of Head Constable is to cross the barrier as imposed in Rules 13.6 and 13.7 of the Punjab Rules, 1934, and thus, one has to qualify for the lists "A" and "B-I". The petitioners had already qualified the list "A" Examination and their names appeared in the list "A" maintained by the Department of Punjab Police, Attock. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the minimum age for admission to Lists "A" and "B-I" was fixed at 30 and 33 years respectively. The petitioners when appeared for promotion to the List "B" were under the age of 33 years and thus, were eligible to appear. Before filing of this constitutional petition, the petitioner had already availed three chances for passing of the said Examination i.e. necessary for being promoted to the List "B-I" of the Constables. The petitioners had unluckily remained unsuccessful. They reappeared in the Examination and were declared successful. The District Police Officer, Attock, vide his letter dated 25- 2-2006, addressed to the Inspector General Police of Punjab, Lahore, sought his advice whether the petitioners could avail over and above the three chances that they had already availed of. The I.-G. Punjab, Lahore, vide his letter, dated 6-3-2006, opined that a constable who failed in the Examination of List B-I in spite of availing of three chances is not to be provided further opportunity to appear in the Examination of promotion. Being unsatisfied with this advice, the petitioners filed a representation before the I.G. Punjab, Lahore and prayed that they had passed List "B-I" Examination and, therefore, their names be entered in the List "B-I". The A.I.-G. (Legal) Punjab, Lahore, vide advice dated 20-3-2006 opined that if the applicants had qualified the Examination of List "B-I", their names should be admitted in the List if the vacancies were available. The I.-G. Punjau, Lahore, sent the above application of the petitioners along with advice of the A.I.-G. (Legal) to the DPO, Attock for taking further necessary action vide letter dated 24-3-2006. The respondents instead of promoting the petitioners to List "B-I", excluded their names from List "A". This situation obliged the petitioners to file the instant petition. This Court vide order dated 3-6-2009 framed the following issues, which were to be addressed by the respondents:

(i) The petitioners as constable had availed three chances for promotion to higher post. In these they could not succeed as per the exams held by the respondents. (ii) However during this period in the context of a separate litigation relating to their department, filed by certain other officials involving some what similar facts and circumstances viz issue of promotion, the matter went before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan; it was resolved as per terms of the order passed therein. (iii) It appears that in pursuance thereof one time concession was allowed to all Constable/Head-Constables, with requisite experience and who had applied before 2006 for promotion, to appear in test/exam of the respondents. (iv) This opportunity was availed by the petitioners herein. In this exam, they showed substantial progress inasmuch as they qualified in lists "A" and "B-I". However an exception was taken thereto by a D.I.-G./Training who vide letter dated 6-3-2006 (Annexure "L" of the file) wrote a letter to D.P.O. Attock in which as per his opinion candidates who had failed to succeed in three examinations, could not be allowed to appear in the examination. (v) The matter then came before the A.I.-G. (Legal). He did not agree with the afore-said assertion of the D.I.-G./Training. According to the opinion of A.I.-G. afore-said as contained in letter dated 20-3-2006 (Page 39 of this file), the petitioners who had qualified the examination as aforesaid, were to be allowed as admitted in the list for promotion. (vi) However, according to the petitioners, this opinion of A.I.-G. (Legal) is not being followed by the respondents."

3. The assistance of A.I.-G. (Legal) was required and he was ordered to appear in the Court on 3-7-2009. On the adjourned date, the A.I.-G. appeared in person and admitted that Punjab Police Rules, 1934 did not limit the number of attempts that could be availed of by the petitioners. However, he stated that as per the policy guidelines issued by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, in the year, 2001, the number of said attempts had been limited to 3.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the correspondence of the police officials inter se. The Police Rules, 1934, have also been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel.

5. After submission of the application by the applicants to the I.-G. Police, Punjab, Lahore, he had sought advice from the A.I.-G. (Legal) in respect of the number of the chances that the candidates could avail. The A.I.-G. (Legal) in his response carried in letter dated 20-3-2006 had categorically opined that the candidates who had qualified examination of List "B-I" were entitled to be enlisted in the List "B-I". In regard to the number of chances, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the number of chances the petitioners could avail was not specified therein. In pursuance of this opinion, the I.-G. Punjab Police, vide his office letter bearing No.184/PSO, dated 24-3-2006, had advised the District Police Officer, Attock to take further necessary action. This letter when read together with the application of the petitioners and opinion given by the A.I.-G. (Legal) would mean that the petitioners having passed the examination were entitled to be promoted to the List "B-I" of the constables. The Punjab Police Rules, 1934 do not prescribe any number of chances that can be availed by the candidates for promotion to the List "B-I". It is a settled principle that while interpreting the law, the interpretation of the same that favours an individual should be preferred' over one that favours lawmakers. In the instant case, the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 do not prescribe any specific number of chances that a candidate could avail. In the absence of such an embargo the possible interpretation is that the number of such chances is infinite till a specific circumscription is introduced by amendment in the rules (ibid). Therefore, in the absence of any such provision, the petitioners cannot be denied their right of being enlisted in List "B-I" of the constables.

6. Upshot of above discussion is that this petition is accepted. The order dated 1-6-2006, passed by the District Police Officer, Attock, excluding names of the petitioners from List A of the constables is set aside. The respondents are directed to prepare the List B-I of the constables afresh after including the names of the petitioners therein. The petition is accepted. H. B.T./Q-4/L Petition accepted.