INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE vs QAYYUM NAWAZ KHAN

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-1-1998 passed by the Punjab' Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), in Appeal No,3214 of 1997.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Tribunal was wrong in granting out of turn promotion to the respondent.

3. The Tribunal found that the respondent was entitled for confirmation as Inspector with effect from 1-7-1986 as recommended by S.P., Muzaffargarh vide his letter dated 8-3-1993 and recommendations made by D.I.-G. vide his letter dated 4-9-1993 and for further benefits such as promotion etc. on the basis of said confirmation. It would be advantageous to reproduce para. 5 of the impugned judgment, which reads thus: "5. Arguments were heard and record perused. It has not been denied that the appellant enjoys satisfactory/good service record whereas he was awarded commendation certificates and cash awards. It was also brought out that a number of officers juniors to the appellant were confirmed as Inspectors from dates earlier than the appellant on out-of-turn basis. on performance of acts of gallantry. The only point seriously urged by the respondent is that ante-dated confirmation is blocked by the amendment in Police Rule 13.20 as mentioned above. It has again not been denied that ante-dated confirmation continued to be awarded for performance of acts of gallantry even after Police Rule 13.20 was amended on 7-11-1994, as for example the case of Inspector Mr. Awais Malik who was confirmed vide order dated 18-3-1997 in recognition of his extraordinary performance of duty... Argument that police Rule 13.20 is a hindrance to confirmation is, therefore, baseless. There is no other argument to contradict the contention of the appellant that he has been discriminated against by wrongly invoking Police Rule 13-20. The appellant was admittedly promoted as Inspector w,e,f, 12-5-1985. His confirmation w,e,f, 1-7-1986 would be even otherwise in consonance with Police Rule 13.18 which provides for confirmation of police Officers. As for the date of confirmation, there is no rule laying down that date of confirmation would be a date different from the date of appointment; the appellant was never reverted from the rank of Inspector. He is not asking for confirmation from a date earlier than the date of appointment. Consequently, no reason was left with the I.G.-P. to disregard the recommendations of S.P., Muzafargarh duly recommended by the D.I.-G., D.G. Khan, No rule, therefore, would be violated in case the recommendations made in his favour were accepted by the I.G.-P. No ground has been mentioned by the 1.G.-P: for discriminating against the appellant when ante-dated confirmations were allowed in similar other cases as pointed out above. The appellant's request for confirmation w,e,f, 1-7-1986 is amply justified and falls within the parameters of the rules.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are inclined to hold that the Tribunal was right in granting relief prayed for by the respondent on the principle of consistency. The impugned judgment does not suffer from a taint in law. No question of law of public importance is involved to warrant interference under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. Even otherwise, the petition is barred by one day and no valid ground exists for its condemnation.

5. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed on merits as well as on ground of limitation. Leave is refused.