Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 2004 1991 SLD 2004 1991 PLC 1066
Service Tribunal, Sindh
Appeal No. 49 of 1988, decided on 23rd May, 1990.
MUNAWAR ALI KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND TASNIM AHMAD SIDDIQUI, MEMBER
Manzoor Ali Khan for Appellant. Salman Ansari for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

ABDULLAH MEMON

VS

INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and 6 others ABDULLAH MEMON vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE and 6 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973)--- ----S.8---Police Rules, 1934, R.13.15---Seniority---Promotion---Appelialit a Police Inspector praying for a direction to Police Department for his admission to List `F' with effect' from date as in case of his batch-mates for purposes of his promotion---Batch-mates of appellants, in the provisional list of Inspectors were shown as senior to appellant---Said provisional list was superseded by another provisional seniority List of Inspectors wherein appellant's name was altogether missing---Appellant represented against both lists---Inspector-General of Police gave him personal hearing and passed final order rejecting said representation of appellant regarding his induction in List `F' and his prayer for promotion to post of Inspector to be ordered retrospectively when his batch-mates and his other juniors were brought on said list and promoted as Inspectors---Prerequisite condition for Sub-Inspector for promotion to Inspector was that his name should be brought on list `F'---When appellant's juniors were promoted as Inspectors, their names had already been brought on List `F' and until then appellant's name had not been brought on List `F' and was brought later on---Seniority list in List `F likewise carried names of these Sub-Inspectors who were found suitable for promotion to post of Inspector by Superintendent of Police. Deputy Inspector ­General of Police and Inspector-General of Police---Held, Service Tribunal was barred from going into question of suitability of any person for appointment/promotion in view of section 4(b), Service Tribunals Act 1973, and consequently Service Tribunal was not competent to direct relevant authorities to include appellant's name in List `F', which even otherwise could not be made public and was immune from scrutiny and criticism except by authorities dealing with it---Relief sought by appellant was refused and appeal dismissed. (b) Police Rules, 1934--- ----R.13.15---List `F'---Process of preparation of List `F', held, was not automatic inasmuch as that while including names of Sub-Inspectors in the list, order of inter se seniority reflected in their cadre was to be mechanically…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492