2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

All these four appeals involve similar and identical questions of facts and law, as such, we intend to dispose of the same by this consolidated judgment.

2. Appellants hereinabove were appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police Criminalistic Division on 25-4-1993, Respondent No.4 was appointed as such on 1-5-1987, respondents Nos.5 and 6 on 30-6-1993 while respondents Nos. 7 to 10 were appointed on 25-4-1993, In a seniority list of ASIPs the private respondents were shown senior to appellants. Vide Notification dated 3-12-1998 all the 7 private respondents so also appellants (except appellant Imtiaz Ali Issani) were promoted as officiating Sub-Inspectors. It was specifically stipulated in the said Notification that: "They will be confirmed in the rank of Sub-Inspectors after successful completion of technical courses, for which they have been appointed as well as on completion of their probationary period. " Appellant Imtiaz Ali Issani (Appeal No.290 of 2002) was, however, deferred for not qualifying probationary course. All the private respondents were subsequently vide order dated 8-11-2001 were confirmed as Sub-inspectors in accordance with Police Rule 13.18 w.e.f. 3-12-2000. Feeling aggrieved with the date of confirmation of private respondents as Sub-Inspectors, appellants preferred departmental appeal(s) on the sole ground that none of the private respondents completed the technical course which was a condition precedent for confirmation as Sub-Inspectors. However, during pendency of departmental appeals, appellants too were confirmed as Sub-Inspectors vide order dated 6-3-2002 w.e.f. 30-12-2000 except appellant Imtiaz Ali Issani who was confirmed as such w.e.f. 28-6-2001. Appellants once again preferred departmental appeals for their retrospective confirmation as Sub-Inspectors, but with no response. Private respondent Nos.4 to 9 were then promoted as Inspectors Criminalistic Division vide order dated 8-8-2002. This promotion order too was challenged by the appellants through their separate departmental appeals preferred on 27-8-2002 which despite lapse of statutory period of 90 days remained unresponded. Hence, these appeals.

3. In support of appeals, learned counsel for the appellants argued that according to condition No.vi of the appointment orders of appellants and private respondents passing of departmental examination including the examination in the subject of Criminalistic was necessary and that in the promotion order dated 3-12-1998 it was clearly stipulated that confirmation in the rank of Sub-Inspectors would be made after successful completion of technical courses. He stated that since none of the private respondents completed the technical course which was a condition precedent, therefore, their confirmation as Sub-Inspectors and subsequent promotion as Inspectors were illegal and ultra vires. Further, he contended that appellants successfully completed the requisite courses from Police Training School, Shandadpur so also obtained requisite training on the subject of Criminalistic from Forensic Science Laboratory N.-W.F.P. Peshawar, but they were neither timely confirmed as Sub-Inspectors nor promoted as Inspectors. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that impugned order dated 8-8-2002 whereby private respondents were promoted as Inspectors may be declared as void ab initio and that official respondents may be directed to consider cases of appellants for promotion w.e.f. 3-12-2000 and their names may be placed at proper place in the seniority list.

4. In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for private respondents submitted that neither in the appointment order nor in the promotion order there was any condition of completion of training from Forensic Science Laboratory N.-W.F.P. Peshawar, as the same is not applicable to Provincial Police employees. He next submitted that services of appellants and private respondents are governed by the West Pakistan non-gazetted technical staff of Finger Print Bureau Service Rules, 1969 and that all the private respondents have completed the requisite training and technical courses from Sindh Province as certified by the Department itself and further that they have also completed the requisite course from police Training School, Shandadpur. He added that private respondents were much senior to the appellants in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors and that they all were promoted as Sub-Inspectors vide order dated 3-12-1998, the private respondents thus maintained their inter se seniority over and above the appellants. Therefore, the private respondents being senior to appellants and fulfilling all the requisite conditions were rightly confirmed as Sub-Inspectors and promoted as Inspectors in accordance with the prescribed rules.

5. Learned Asstt. A.-G. adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for private respondents. While referring to the written statement filed by respondent No.3 (which is also adopted by respondent Nos.1 and 2) she argued that services of Police Staff of Criminalistic Division are being governed under the provisions of Police Rules, 1934 and that for promotion and confirmation certificate of qualification from Forensic Science Laboratory, Peshawar never remained the condition.

6. We have considered the above submissions and with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties have gone through the documents, placed on the record. Appellants and all the private respondents were appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police, Criminalistic Division, subject to certain terms and conditions, such as, they will have to undergo the departmental training from time to time including in the field of Criminalistic and that they shall be on probation for 3 years and shall be liable to be discharged at any time within the period of probation if they failed to pass the departmental examinations including the examination in the subjects of Criminalistic. In a seniority list of A.S.I.Ps. the private respondents were shown senior to the appellants. Admittedly, the appellants (except Imtiaz Ali Issani) and the private respondents were jointly promoted as Sub-Inspectors vide Notification dated 3-12-1998, meaning thereby, that they all not only successfully completed their probation period but also cleared their departmental trainings and course's including in the field of Criminalistic, which were the conditions of their appointments. Since the private respondents were senior to the appellants in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, therefore, on promotion they maintained their inter se; seniority as per rules. In the promotion order it was specifically stipulated that they will be confirmed in the rank of Sub-Inspectors after successful completion of technical courses. It is the case of appellants that since they have completed technical course from Forensic Science Laboratory N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, therefore, they were entitled to confirmation as well as promotion to higher rank viz Inspectors, but the private respondents who never acquired such technical training were not only confirmed against the posts of Sub-Inspectors but were also promoted to the post of Inspectors, that the injustice of highest magnitude was meted out with them. On careful scrutiny of the papers made available before us coupled with the stand taken by the, official respondents we are of the considered view that acquiring of technical course from Forensic Science Laboratory N.-W.F.P., Peshawar was not a condition precedent either for confirmation or for promotion to the higher rank. There is, however, no dispute that appellants as well as private respondents have already acquired the technical training locally from Sindh Province. As stated earlier, admittedly the private respondents were senior to the appellants and they fulfilled the requisite formalities and the conditions, therefore, were rightly confirmed prior to the appellants. The private respondents were confirmed against the posts of Sub-Inspectors w.e.f. 3-12-2000 vide order dated 8-11-2001. Appellants though filed departmental appeals against the said order which remained unresponded, but could not challenge it before this Tribunal. Subsequently, appellants (except appellant Imtiaz Ali Issani) were also confirmed w.e.f. 30-12-2000 vide order dated 6-3-2002. This order too was challenged before departmental forum but no further steps were taken. Therefore, by passage of time, the appellants as it appears accepted the date of confirmation of the private respondents, they have thus lost their right to challenge the subsequent order of promotion of private respondents as Inspectors Criminalistic Division dated 8-8-2002.

7. For what has been stated above, we are of the considered view that private respondents on the basis of their seniority and confirmation coupled with availability of posts were rightly promoted to the post of Inspectors and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Department. The appeals being devoid of merits are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

8. Before parting with the judgment it is pertinent to observe here that in future official respondents should nominate employees from Criminalistic Division according to their seniority for acquiring technical training from Forensic Science Laboratory N.-W.F.P., Peshawar as and when required.

9. Announced in open Court. S.A.K./38/KST Appeal dismissed.