1988 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).‑‑These are seven connected appeals. The brief facts compelling the appellants to have resort to present appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 are that the appellants are all serving as Constables. They took examination held by respondent No.l for including their names in list 'B'. The grievance of appellants Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Tariq, Muhammad Arshad and Nazir Ahmad is that in spite of the fact that they not only passed in individual papers but also obtained the prescribed aggregate marks and were declared successful but still their names did not find way in the list 'B' while the grievance of other three appellants is that they were failing in one paper only, therefore, were entitled to grace marks as given to the other candidates more particularly Allah Wasaya and Abbas Ali. We are giving below the sum and substance of the grievance of the appellants in order to clearly understand their view‑point:‑ General Law Police Rules G. P. Knowledge Parade Total Remarks marks 360 Total Total Marks 90 Marks 90 Total 90 Total 90 Total Pass marks 45 Pass marks 45 Pass marks 45 Pass marks 45 Pass marks 45 Marks Obtained Marks Obtained Marks Obtained Marks Obtained Precedent cases 43 74 65 41 223 Pass 34 78 66 56 234 Pass Appellants: Nazir Ahmad 298 43 65 63 45 217 Muhammad Tariq 323 41 68 48 54 211 Muhammad Arshad 288 36 57 45 53 191 Nazir Ahmad 127 39 51 45 49 186 Muhammad Iqbal 150 53 69 82 36 240 Muhammad Asghar 112 48 64 75 36 223 Muhammad Tufail 111 33 56 46 56 191

2. The respondent No.l issued the list 'B' and since the names of the appellants were not included, therefore, the appellants submitted representation to the respondent No.2, who after due consideration of the matter rejected the representations vide order dated 3‑1‑1987. The appellants still not feeling satisfied with the result of their efforts decided to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The appeals were admitted to regular hearing and notices issued to the respondents, who have contested the appeals.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as District Attorney and gone through the record, relevant rules and circulars. The learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeals raised following points:‑ (i) Firstly, that the respondent No.l on wrong assumptions of Police Rule 13.7 has converted a qualifying test into a competitive examination. It is added that neither there is any restriction on the number nor any quota as far as inclusion of the names in list 'B' is concerned; (ii) Secondly, that each Constable has been allowed three chances to qualify the test for getting himself enlisted in list 'B' and appellants have wrongly been denied second chance; (iii) Thirdly, that the appellants have been met with discriminatory treatment. In this behalf learned counsel for the appellant has relied on case reported as P L D 1985 SC 195 and 1986 P L C (CS) 335.

4. On the other hand the learned District Attorney has argued that since the number of seats for Lower School Course are limited, therefore, the respondent rightly enlisted the Constables according to the number of seats available. It is added that the entry is to be approved of the D. I. G. therefore, only the Constables, who were cleared by the respondent No.1, were to be selected. It is maintained that there was no discrimination at all and the respondents have acted even handedly and fairly.

5. In reply to the last argument of the learned counsel for the appellants, it was clarified that respondent No.2 has allowed the appellants to appear in the next examination if entitled under the rules as is clear from the last line of his order.

6. We have given our anxious considerations to the arguments of both the sides and before proceeding to deal with the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal with reference to the arguments of the learned District Attorney, we would like to refer to Police Rule 13.7, the same reads as under:‑ "List B (in form 13.7) shall also be maintained by each Superintendent of Police and shall be divided into two parts:‑ (1) Selection grade constables considered suitable as candidates for the Lower School Course at the Police Training School. (2) Constables (selection or time‑scale) considered suitable for drill and other special courses at the Police Training School. Selection shall be made from this list as vacancies occur for admission to the courses concerned at the Police Training School, provided that no constable shall be considered eligible for any such course until the entry of his name in list 'B' has been approved by the Deputy Inspector‑General of the Range. Ordinarily seniority in age shall be given prior consideration in making such selections, irrespective of the date of admission to the list, and care must be taken that a constable borne on the list is not allowed to become over age for admission to the school before being selected. The restrictions on admission to the lower school course and Instructors' courses at the Police Training School limit the conditions or admission to list B. No constable shall be admitted to that list whose age is such that he cannot in the normal course be to the Training School before he attains the age of (33) years. No constable, who has failed to qualify at the Training School, shall be re‑admitted to the list unless the Superintendent and the Principal of the School are in agreement that he is deserving of another chance of qualifying in the courses, in the event of disagreement as to such a case the Deputy Inspector‑General shall decide."

7. We have given our anxious considerations to the text of the rule. At the best it can be said that it is not happily worded but as for the intention is concerned, there is no ambiguity. The rule has to be read as a whole according to the principles of interpretation of statutes. It cannot be read in piecemeal because that will destroy the object and defeat the intention of the legislature. Now if the rule is read as a whole, then following formalities/stages come very eminent:‑ (i) Preparation of list 'B', (ii) Approval of the entries in the list by the D.I.G. of the Range; (iii) The admission to list 'B' is controlled/ limited by the restrictions on admission to the courses. (iv) The Constables although qualifying all conditions precedent yet on account of their age cannot be sent in the normal course for training before they attain the age of 33 years are not to be enlisted.

8. When the last two conditions are taken into consideration, there is only one un-escapable conclusion that the respondents have the authority to restrict the list. The argument on behalf of the appellants that the test for the inclusion of name in the list 'B' is altogether independent from the selection for the courses though on the face of it very sound argument, yet when whole of the rule is taken into consideration, the conclusion is that the restrictions are there. The rationale behind seems to be that only constables, who, are likely to be sent up for courses, their names should be brought on the list. Even otherwise if the names of the officials are brought on the list ' B' without keeping in mind the number of seats available and a proportion is not maintained between the entry to list 'B' and number of seats available for courses, the net result will be that best of the lots shall be deprived of opportunity of attending the courses.

9. The framers of the rules perhaps wanted to select the best of the talent available at the relevant time, therefore, made a provision for keeping a proportion to the admission to list 'B' and seats available in the Training Schools. The authorities are to pick the top‑notchers for the training from the latest list. It is needless to add here that the appellants are entitled to take the examination if not debarred by the rules and it is the bounden duty of the respondents to ensure equal and even handed treatment to all.

10. We have gone through the result sheet attached as Annexure) 'A' and find that the same was prepared in accordance with the rules, therefore, it does not admit of any interference by us. The list has been prepared meritwise and even if appellant Muhammad Tufail is given two grace marks according to the policy, still he will be at the tail‑end of the merit list. The respondents have picked up the first 14 strictly in accordance with the merit. The upshot of this discussion is that we do not find any merit in the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs and the respondents are directed to ` allow the appellants to take the examination in accordance with the rules. A.A. /179/Sr.P Appeals dismissed.