2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Through this single judgment I propose to dispose of the above listed seven appeals which raise identical questions of law and facts.

2. Briefly, the relevant facts are that all the above‑named appellants, while serving as Constable in Police Department in‑ Kasur District, were promoted to the rank of officiating Head Constables in 'their own pay and scale‑ This out of turn promotion was granted to them for their excellent performance. Later, on 30‑9‑2000 Superintendent Police Kasur passed the impugned order whereby the appellants and 'many others, who had been allowed out of turn promotion, were reverted to their substantive rank of Constable. Aggrieved by their reversion, the appellants filed representation to Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, Lahore Range which h‑ rejected. Hence the present service appeals.

3. In support of appeals, the counsel for the appellants contend that the appellants had been allowed out of turn promotion in accordance with the policy promulgated by Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab; that the principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted in the case of the appellants who could not be reverted because the order of their promotion had already been acted upon: that the appellants had been subjected to discrimination because many out of turn promotees are still working in Police Department; that the appellants had been condemned unheard because no notice was served upon them before passing the impugned order.

4. Respondents have filed written objections. The case of the departmental authorities is that out of turn promotions were against the Rules and Policy laid down for the purpose of promotion. The competent authority, who promoted the appellants could also withdraw such promotions and no discrimination had been meted out to the appellants because all out of turn constables had been reverted. Impugned order had thus been passed on merit.

5. Arguments have been heard and record perused. It is an admitted position that all the appellants had been allowed out of turn promotion. The relevant Police Rule which governs the promotion of police officials do not stipulate any out of turn promotion. The relevant portion of rule 13.1(i) is reproduced below: "Promotion from one rank to another, and from one grade to another in the same rank, shall be made by selection tempered by seniority, efficiency and honesty shall be the main factors governing selection. Specific qualifications, whether in the nature of training courses passed or practical experience, shall be carefully considered in each case. When the qualifications of two officers are otherwise equal, the senior shall be promoted. This rule does not affect increments within a time scale". The above rule clearly spells out that seniority is an important factor which has to be taken into consideration while promoting a police official from one rank to the other. Promotion of constable to the rank of Head Constable is to be made under rule 13.8(1) which lays down the guiding principle that the order of merit in which departmental examination has been passed is to be observed. In case the other qualifications are equal, seniority shall be the deciding factor.

6. Judged on the above touchstone laid down in the Rules, I hold that no Police Authority had the arbitrary powers to grant any out of turn promotion and as such I see no legal sanction in promoting the appellants out of seniority. In case a police official has performed some extraordinary act, he may be rewarded with cash or other material awards but no police authority can be allowed to disturb the seniority or his colleagues because admittedly seniority is a vested right in in'‑. Province of Punjab.

7. The learned counsel have referred to certain policy letters issued by Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab allowing local police officials to grant out of turn promotion. Notwithstanding the fact that such letters were subsequently withdrawn, I hold that any such letter cannot supersede or even substitute the substantive legislation available in the form of Police Rules which do not allow any out of turn promotion. .

8. The contention that principle of locus penitential is attracted in the present case is a misconceived view. The correct position is that an illegal order once passed does not become irrevocable and a closed transaction. No perpetual rights, can be derived on the basis of such an order. It is also a settled legal position that a public authority which can pass an order is empowered to rescind it (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 207). In the present case the appellants had been allowed out of turn promotion not sanctioned under the law and as such the Authority which allowed the promotion was fully competent to withdraw, it.

9. The contention that as per principle of natural justice the appellants should have been issued a show‑cause notice before reverting them has no merit. It has been laid down in 2000 SCMR 207 that the principle of natural justice cannot be deemed to be of universal nature. One has to establish that one has vested right to defend action contemplated against him before invoking this principle. Where a claimant has no entitlement, he cannot seek the protection of the principle of natural justice.

10. The claim that the appellants have been subjected to discrimination is without substance. Departmental Authorities have denied it. Even otherwise, any bad precedent cannot be pressed to seek any relief. The mere fact that same had obtained advantage otherwise not I admissible could not constitute a ground for claiming similar advantage on the basis of discrimination (1998 SCMR 882).

11. For the above reasons I find no merit in these appeals which are dismissed without passing any order as to cost. H.B.T./121/PST Appeals dismissed.