P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

ORTCHESON, J.‑This is a writ petition by one Khan Ghulam Hassan Khan a Deputy Superintendent of Police, against ten res pondents, including the Government of West Pakistan and the Inspector General of Police, West Pakistan. His case is that before Partition he was in the Baroda Police Service, and had attained the rank of a permanent Superintendent of Police. He then migrated to Pakistan, and occupied various posts in the Sind Police Service, his pay being fixed on the 3rd of August 1951 at Rs. 600 per mensem in the rank of Deputy Superintendent. The question of his seniority was at that time left undecided. By a notification dated the 3rd of August 1955, he and 8 others were confirmed as Deputy Superintendents of Police, he being according to his statement placed at the top of the list. On the 27th of April 1955, however, the above notification was cancelled, and the petitioner was placed No. 12 on the list, and treated as the most junior officer.

2. The integration of the Provinces then took place, and on the 1st of July 1956, the Government of the new Province of West Pakistan published a list containing the seniority and dates of confirmation of Deputy Superintendents of Police. In that list, the petitioner's date of appointment to the Service was given as the 15th of January 1948, and his date of confirmation as the 1st of December 1954, whereas in the case of other direct recruits, the date of appointment and the date of confirmation were the same. The petitioner submitted various representations to Government, but without success. He then filed the present petition praying for a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or directions ordering and directing the respondents (1) to cancel the arbitrary decision of the Government of Sind contained in their notification dated 27‑4‑1955, confirming the petitioner from 1‑12‑1954 and placing him at the bottom of the list. (2) To withdraw the decision of the West Pakistan Govern ment dated the 1st of July 1956 to the extent to which it adversely affects the petitioner. (3) to recognise the petitioner's confirmation with effect from the date of his first appointment, namely, the 10th of January 1948. (4) in the alternative, to announce his confirmation and/or seniority with effect from 28‑11‑1948, and (5) to grant to the petitioner all necessary and ancillary reliefs.

3. The allegations of the petitioner are traversed by all the respondents. The counter‑affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, the Government of West Pakistan and the Inspector‑General of Police, West Pakistan, asserts that the petitioner was only recruited on a temporary basis until his confirmation on the 1st of December 1954. With respect to the notification of the 3rd of March 1955, it is denied that it fixed his seniority, it being on the contrary clearly stated in the notification that seniority and dates of confirmation would be decided later. According to the relevant rules, seniority is to be determined on the basis of the date of confirmation, and as the remaining respondents were confirmed earlier than the petitioner, they are senior to him. The respon dents add that Mr. Qamar Raza, respondent No. 3, Mr. Zafarul Haq Memon, respondent No. 4, and Mr. Abdul Rahim, respon dent No. 5, were shown as confirmed on the dates of their appointments by reason of the facts that they were recruited against substantive vacancies. The petitioner's allegations that he has been singled out for oppressive and mala fide treatment is denied, it being stated by the respondents that no officer junior to the petitioner is officiating as Superintendent of Police.

4. The rule governing the seniority inter se of Deputy Superintendents of Police directly recruited is rule IV (3) of Chapter II of the Bombay District Police Manual, the relevant portion of which runs "Seniority inter se of Deputy Superintendents of Police appointed by direct recruitment should be determined in accordance with the dates of their confirmation as Deputy Superintendent of Police." This rule was modified by the Resolution referred to by the petitioner and forming annexure A‑4 to the petition. The resolution in question purports to regulate the seniority of direct, recruits vis‑a‑vis promoted officers, but it is obviously not intended to apply to persons recruited on a purely temporary basis, as was the position of the petitioner till his confirmation on 1‑12‑54.

5. In addition to the petitioner, four other officers, Mr. Mahmood Ali Khan, Mr. Nazir Ahmad, Mr. Muhammad Rahim and Mr. Ghulam Nabi Faruqi all promotees, are shown in annexure A‑6 (page 37 of the paper‑book) as having been confirmed on the 1st of December 1954, and it is explained by the respondents that the petitioner has been placed below the others on the basis of the ratio of promoted officers to direct recruits. It is not for this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction to challenge the correctness of this statement.

6. The petitioner's contention that the notification of the 3rd of March 1955, referred to in para. 12 of his petition, placed him at the top of the list of confirmed Deputy Superintendents of Police is clearly not correct in so far as it implies that the petitioner was placed first in order of merit. The notification in question is appended as A‑4 to the petition, and begins : ‑ "The following Sind Provincial Service Police Officers are confirmed in their appointments as Deputy Superintendents of Police. Their seniority and dates of confirmation will be decided later." The only reason it was found necessary to cancel the above notification and replace it by the second notification of the 22nd of April 1955, (Appendix annexure A/5 to the petition), appears to be that whereas the earlier document mentioned the names of only 9 officers as being confirmed, the later notification contains 12 names. It is incorrect to argue, as the petitioner does, that the effect of the issue of the second notification was to upset an earlier fixation of seniority.

7. The petitioner's argument that he must be treated as appointed substantively with effect from the 28th of November 1948, if not from the 10th of January 1948, (there was a break in his service thereafter) cannot be accepted. In the Sind Civil Lists corrected up to the 1st of July 1950 and the 1st of January 1951, he is shown at Nos. 36 and 35 at pages 146 and 162 respectively, as occupying the temporary post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti‑Corruption Department, and there is no doubt that he continued to be on a temporary basis till his confirmation.

8. The petitioner has laid great stress on a memorandum dated the 9th of December 1957 from the Chief Secretary, Government of West Pakistan, to all heads of Attached Departments (Annexure A‑7 to the petition) in which it is stated that displaced Government servants employed under the Provincial Government should be placed in a seniority list or cadre according to the date on which they were appointed in that service or cadre, but it would appear to be clear that again the policy laid down is intended to apply to permanent and not to temporary officers, and the memorandum cannot be considered as superseding the Police rule IV (3) already referred to in para. 4 above.

9. To sum up, whatever may be said of the manner in which the petitioner's date of confirmation has been fixed, this question is one in the discretion of Government, and in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction this Court cannot interfere. On the basis of the date of confirmation, the relevant rules are not shown to have been incorrectly applied, and there is no material to justify interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances we pass no order as to costs. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.