1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for a declaration that the impugned notification dated 3-12-1989, so far ignoring the petitioner for promotion as D.S.P.is without lawful authority and jurisdiction.

2. The relevant facts are that the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 23-11-1989 to consider the promotion of petitioner and his other colleagues as D.S.P. The petitioner was ignored for promotion on ground of indifferent service record and punishment of censure. The petitioner has challenged this decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee through this Constitutional petition. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notice was issued to the respondent, who has entered appearance through Mr. Muhammad Rashid Malik, Advocate and contested the petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the respondent failed to appreciate that it was a non-selection post and promotion was to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. In this behalf he has referred to the Punjab Deputy Superintendents of Police Service Rules, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as Rules of 1979) as amended up-to-date. The next submission is that the Departmental Promotion Committee did not apply its mind to. the service record of the petitioner. It is submitted that a reference to the Synopsis of Character Roll produced by the respondent clearly showed that petitioner was a fit person for promotion. It is added that the punishment of censure was set aside as back as 24-1-1987. The arguments are summed up with the submission that the petitioner has met with discriminatory treatment as much as his colleagues with really bad record were promoted without having a look at their service roll.

4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of Departmental Promotion Committee. It is added that the petitioner was ignored for promotion on valid grounds incorporated in the minutes of the Committee.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The admitted position on record is that it is a non-selection post and promotion is to be made on seniority -cum-fitness. The column 7 of the Schedule to the Rules of 1979 as amended vide notification dated 23-9-1986, reads as under:-- Name of the post Method of recruitment 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10. Deputy Superintendent of Police (i) General Executive Branch. (ii) Legal Branch. (iii) Finger Print and Forensic Science Branch. (iv) Tele-Communication-cum - Transport Branch. By promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness from among the Inspectors of Police of respective Branch borne on the Select List to be maintained by the Inspector General of Police separately for each branch.

6. The Departmental Promotion Committee ignored the petitioner on the ground of punishment of censure but failed to appreciate that the said punishment was set aside as back as 24-1-1987. The respondent has failed to controvert the plea of the petitioner.

7. Now coming to the other ground that the petitioner has a indifferent service record. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent was asked to explain this term with the reference to Civil Servants Act and the Rules of 1979. The term remained unexplained. It seems that the same has been coined by the authorities unmindful of the fact that it is too vague a term and has no legal basis. The learned counsel submitted that the record is to be seen on the due date for promotion and not subsequent to that. The Synopsis submitted by the respondent clearly falsified the term used by the Departmental Promotion Committee for ignoring the petitioner. There is also merit that the Promotion Committee has failed to exercise its discretion fairly and evenhandedly as much as certain colleagues of the petitioner have been promoted in spite of stinking service record. However, this argument is not relevant for the reasons that neither the said persons have been impleaded as respondents nor their service record has been appended with the petition.

8. Now coming to the objection. This is true that this Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of Departmental Promotion Committee but this Court can set aside the recommendations of the Committee, which are against law and facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly referred to the judgments in the cases of Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others (P L D 1989 S C 166), Government of Punjab through Secretary, Services and General Administration Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore v. Ch. Muhammad Mahmood Advocate and 22 others (P L D 1988 SC 376), Mazhar Hussain v. Province of Punjab P L D 1985 Lah. 394 and Muhammad Zaman Khan v. Government of Punjab and others 1981 P L C (C.S.) 434.

9. The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is allowed with costs. The result is that proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee ignoring the petitioner for promotion are hereby declared illegal and set aside and respondent is directed to place the case of the petitioner expeditiously before the Departmental Promotion Committee for its fresh decision in accordance with the law and record. A.A./M-2407/L Petition allowed.