1981 P L (PLP)

‑‑R. 13.7‑List B‑1‑Constable approved and included in List B‑1 Name removed arbitrarily without valid reason‑‑Order of Superin tendent of Police, in circumstances, held, ultra vires of rules. M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN). The appellant, Abdul Jabbar. Foot Constable No. 344/218 is aggrieved by the Standing Order No. 1 of 1978 issued by the D. I. G. Police, Sargodha Range, on 30th March, 1978 and the consequent order dated 28th August 1978, issued by the S. P., Sargodha. By virtue of the latter order, the appellant's name was removed from List B‑1 and he lost his eligibility to be sent up to the training school, and, according to him, his chances of promotion were adversely affected. The parties were heard. On behalf of the appellant D. I. G.'s Stand ing Order No. 1 was assailed for being contrary to section 12 of the Police Act and the S. P's. order, dated 30th August 1978, which purported to implement the Standing Order No. 1, for being against rule 13.7 of the Police Rules setting out the procedure for preparation of List B‑

1. It was contended that any name could only be removed from this list vide rule 13.8‑A and none otherwise. The appellant had been admitted to the List on 14th March, 1978, after taking a proper examination and his service prospects had been grievously injured by the two orders. On behalf of the department, the issuance of Standing Order No. 1 was defended on the ground that under Police rule 1.6 the D. I. G. is responsible for the administration, training and discipline of the force under him and can issue standing orders about procedural directions in respect of these matters. The names of the appellant and 35 others were rightly removed as the quota of persons to be sent to training school had been grossly exceeded and there was no chance of their turn coming up in even ten years. We find that rule 13.7 puts no limit on the number of entrants in List B‑1, although it also does not expressly debar the D. I. G. from not placing such a limit. It, however, restricts the conditions for admission to this list by stating that "no Constable shall be admitted to that list whose age is such that he cannot in the normal course be sent to the Train ing School before he attains the Age of 30 years". It follows from this that whenever an entrant on List B‑1 reaches the age of 30 years he would automatically lose the chance of being sent up to the Training School. We have no quarrel with the Standing Order No. I issued by the D. I. G. because he did not direct the S.P's. in his range to cancel the lists already drawn up but merely pointed out the futility of having a large list of names in B‑

1. He think that his observation did not have the force of as an order or a directive meant have to retrospective effect. The S.P. should have let the list stand, and if, by the force of circumstances and passage of time the entrants reached the age of 30 years and lost their eligibility for the Training School the list would automatically become attenuated to the new limit set up by the D.I.G. We hold, therefore, that the S. P., Sargodha's order, dated 28th August 1978, was ultra vires of the Police Rules and that list B‑1, as it stood on that date, continues to stand. It will now be for the S.P. to see whether the appellant did have or did not have a chance to go up to the Training School before attaining 30 years in accordance with the priority of age prescribed in rule 13.7. The appeal is accepted to the above extent. Appeal accepted.