IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
( Appellate Jurisdiction ) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, HCJ. 
MR. JUSTICE AMIR HANI MUSLIM 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
 
CIVIL PETITIONS NO.493, 494, 505 TO 508,  
529 TO 532, 533, 601, 906 AND 911 TO 917 OF 2015. 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 13.3.2015 passed  
by the Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi, in Appeals No.130-  
134/2014, 2, 237& 238/2015) 
 
 
Gul Hassan Jatoi 
 
(CPs.493,494,505&506/15) 
Abdul Razzak Bugti  
(CPs.507&508/15) 
Faqir Muhammad Jatoi 
(CP.529/15) 
Masroor Ahmed Jatoi 
(CP.530/15) 
Sohrab Ali Meo 
 
(CP.531/15) 
Yar Muhammad Rind 
(CP.532/15) 
Lal Bux Solangi 
 
(CP.533/15) 
Abdullah and another  
(CP.601/15) 
Province of Sindh thr.  
(CPs.906 & 911-917/15) 
Chief Secy. Sindh 
 
 
 
 
 … 
Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
VERSUS 
Faqir Muhammad Jatoi 
 
(CPs.493,508,911/15) 
Aijaz Ali Memon & others  
(CP.494,916/15) 
Sohrab Ali Meo & others   
(CP.505, 913/15) 
Ins. M. Azam Khan  
 
(CP.506,601,917/15) 
Yar Muhammad Rind etc  
(CP.507,906/15) 
Province of Sindh & others  
(CPs.529-532/15) 
Masroor Ahmed Jatoi etc  
(CP.912/15) 
Lal Bux Solongi etc  
 
(CP.914/15) 
Rafique Ahmed Abbasi 
 
(CP.915/15)  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… 
Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the Petitioners   
: 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, ASC 
(in CPs.493, 494, 505-506, 
 
Mr. Zulfiqar Khalid Maluka, ASC 
906 & 911-917/15) 
  
 
Mr. M. Munir Peracha, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Sr. ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
For the Respondents  
: 
Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, ASC 
(1-4) in CP.494/15 
(1-22) in CP.506/15 
 
For Govt. of Sindh  
: 
Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik, AG Sindh, 
Mr. Adnan Karim, Addl. AG Sindh 
Ghulam Ali Barhman, Addl. Secy 
(Services) 
 
2 
Dr. Amin Yousafzai, DIG 
Naeem Ahmed Shaikh, AIG (Establishment) 
Dr. Mazhar Ali Shah, AIG (Legal) 
Aman Ullah Zardai, Focal Person, HD 
Others Respondents   
: 
Not represented.  
(in all cases) 
Date of hearing 
 
: 
29-10-2015, 3-11-2015 & 4-11-2015 
 
Judgment 
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.- These Petitions for leave to 
Appeal are directed against judgment dated 13.3.2005, of the Sindh 
Service Tribunal, Karachi, whereby 08 Service Appeals filed by the 
Petitioners/Respondents were disposed of, vide impugned judgment in 
the following terms:- 
i. 
Sindh Reserve Police and all other branches of 
Police Force such as Rapid Respondent Force 
(RRF), Sindh Reserve Police (SRP), Prosecution 
Branch, Telecommunication Branch, Female Police, 
Special Branch (Crime Branch) are separate cadres 
other than the District Police/Regular Police, 
although all of them are one Police Force which is 
an attached department of the Home Department 
under the Sindh Government Rules of Business, 
1986 and Inspector General of Police is head of 
attached department. 
ii. 
Since all branches of Police Force are assigned with 
different and separate functions they are different 
cadres, therefore, the Provincial Government shall 
frame recruitment rules and the terms and 
conditions of their service separately for each cadre, 
except for those cadres in respect of which separate 
rules are already there such as Women Police and 
Prosecution Branch etc. 
iii. 
After framing of rules pertaining to recruitment and 
other terms and conditions of service as required 
 
3 
under section 2 of Police Act 1861, separate 
seniority list of each cadre and in each scale/rank 
shall be issued as required under rule 9 of the Sindh 
Civil 
Servants 
(Probation, 
Confirmation 
and 
Seniority) Rules, 1975 wherein it is provided that in 
each cadre in a department there shall be a separate 
seniority list of a group of civil servants doing 
similar duties and performing similar functions and 
for whose appointment same qualifications and 
experience have been laid down.  
iv. 
There is no provision in law for transfer of 
officers/officials from one cadre to another cadre, 
therefore, all the transfers made from Sindh Reserve 
Police to District Police in violation of law and in 
pursuance of various Standing Orders are hereby 
nullified and all such officers are directed to be 
repatriated to their parent branch i.e. Sindh Reserve 
Police.   
v. 
All the Standing Orders issued from time to time by 
different Inspector Generals of Police/Provincial 
Police Officers without approval of Provincial 
Government are declared to be illegal and void to 
the extent of prescribing the recruitment rules, terms 
and conditions of service of the officers/men in 
Sindh Reserve Police including devising of transfer 
policy and pertaining to the assignment of seniority 
in violation of rules.  
vi. 
The Inspector General of Police Sindh is directed 
not to issue any Standing Order under section 12 of 
the Police Act, 1861 without approval of Provincial 
Government and even with the approval of 
Provincial Government no orders can be issued by 
Inspector General of Police pertaining to the 
recruitment and terms and conditions of service of 
the members of the Police Force in different 
branches and cadre, as such powers can be 
exercised by Provincial Government only by virtue 
of section 2 of Police Act, 1861. 
 
4 
vii. 
The Inspector General of Police Sindh is directed to 
ensure that all the training courses prescribed in the 
Police Rules 1934, are duly imparted and the rules 
pertaining to the maintaining of various promotion 
lists are observed and the seniority lists are prepared 
strictly in accordance with the provisions contained 
in Police Rules, 1934, after due observation of 
Police Rules, by the District Superintendents of 
Police, Deputy Inspector Generals and the Inspector 
General himself. It is further directed that 
promotion list ‘E’ shall be published in Police 
Gazette as required under rule 13.11. 
viii. 
The Inspector General of Police is further directed 
to ensure that no officiating promotion shall be 
made as a matter of normal course and such orders 
shall be made strictly in accordance with the Police 
Rules and merely for the purpose of deciding fitness 
and ability of officers concerned.  
ix. 
The Inspector General of Police is further directed 
to ensure that no officer is confirmed in any rank 
while serving in officiating capacity, without 
promotion in the substantive rank. 
x. 
The Inspector General of Police Sindh is further 
directed to ensure that no antedated confirmations 
and promotions shall be made and the dates of 
confirmations and promotions shall not be revised 
by any officer or Committee of the officers.  
xi. 
The impugned seniority list dated 7.2.2014, is set 
aside and no promotion shall be made on the basis 
thereof. The officers who were transferred from 
Sindh Reserve Police to Regular Police shall be 
promoted on preparation of their seniority list in 
SRP, after framing of rules by the Provincial 
Government in respect of Sindh Reserve Police 
Fresh seniority list shall be prepared for the District 
Police, Initially provisional and after filing of 
objections the final seniority list and thereafter the 
promotion in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of 
 
5 
Police shall be considered by Departmental 
Promotion Committee.  
xii. 
The Provincial Government is further directed to 
provide reasonable quotas of promotion for each 
branch of Police Force/Cadre in accordance with 
their strength. In this behalf the direction of 
Supreme Court of India in the case of Raghunath 
Parsad 
Sing 
vs. 
Secretary 
Home 
(Police) 
Department, Government Bihar, 1989 MLD 2153, 
should be kept in view. It has been directed by the 
Supreme 
Court 
of 
India 
that 
“reasonable 
promotional opportunities should be available in 
every wing of public service. That generates 
efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate 
attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. 
In the absence of promotional prospects, the service 
is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the 
desire to serve properly.”   
 
2. 
 
Originally, Petitioners Messrs Faqir Muhammad Jatoi, 
Masroor Ahmad Jatoi, Sohrab Ali Meo, Lal Bux Solangi, Yar 
Muhammad Rind filed Service Appeals before the Tribunal, 
impugning the final seniority list dated 07.02.2014. Rafiq Ahmed 
Abbasi Respondent No.1 in Civil Petition No.915 of 2015 was also 
one of the Appellants before the Sindh Service Appeal.  
 
3. 
 
Inspectors Ijaz Ali Memon and Muhammad Azam Khan 
also filed Appeals before the Tribunal, being aggrieved of the transfer 
of personnel of the Sindh Reserve Police to the Regular Police Force, 
due to which their seniority was adversely affected. They also 
impugned the seniority list dated 07.02.2014. They prayed that the 
Sindh Reserve Police be declared as a separate cadre. 
 
6 
4. 
 
Brief facts of the case of each of the Petitioners who filed 
Appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal are as under:- 
 
 
C.P.No.529 of 2015. 
 
 
Faqir Muhammad Jatoi  vs.  Province of Sindh 
 
5. 
 
On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant 
Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive 
process. On 25.5.1989, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector 
and then promoted as Inspector vide order dated 20.9.2004 w.e.f 
12.1.1998. On 30.6.2006, the Inspector General of Police, Sindh, 
issued a tentative seniority list of Inspectors of Sindh Police, 
whereafter, on 20.12.2008 another tentative seniority list of Inspector 
was issued by the Inspector General of Police, Sindh. This list was 
withdrawn and a revised seniority list was issued on 20.1.2009. On 
20.4.2010, yet another seniority list was issued and the Petitioner was 
placed at serial No.403 of the said list. The Petitioner raised 
objections to the said tentative seniority list, which were never 
responded to. On 23.10.2013, without finalizing the tentative seniority 
list issued on 20.4.2010, yet another tentative seniority list was issued 
wherein the Petitioner was placed at serial No.254. Ultimately, a final 
seniority list was issued on 7.2.2014, on the basis of which a meeting 
of the Departmental Promotion Committee was convened and more 
than 80 Inspectors were promoted to the rank of the Deputy 
Superintendent of Police. The Petitioner filed a departmental Appeal, 
which was not decided within the statutory period, therefore, he 
preferred a Service Appeal before the Sindh Service Tribunal, 
challenging the seniority list dated 7.2.2014 with the prayer to assign 
 
7 
him proper seniority. The Appeal of the Petitioner was disposed of, 
vide impugned judgment. 
 
 
 
C.P.No.530 of 2015. 
 
 
Masroor Ahmed Jatoi  vs.   Province of Sindh.  
 
6. 
 
On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant 
Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police after qualifying the 
requisite examination. On 25.1.1990, he was promoted as Sub-
Inspector and on 8.7.1998, he was promoted as Inspector. On his 
representation, the Petitioner was allowed inter se seniority with his 
batch-mates w.e.f. 11.1.1996, and he was confirmed as Inspector w.e.f 
11.1.1996, vide order dated 20.9.2004. On 22.9.2005, the Petitioner 
was promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police out of turn on 
gallantry basis and was relegated to the post of Inspector in the advent 
of judgment of this Court in the year 2013.  
 
7. 
 
Two or three seniority lists were issued in the 
interregnum, whereafter on 7.2.2014, a final seniority list was issued 
on the basis of which more than 80 Inspectors were promoted as 
Deputy Superintendents of Police. After exhausting the departmental 
remedy, ultimately, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Sindh 
Service Tribunal, challenging the final seniority list dated 7.2.2014, 
which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.   
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.531 of 2015. 
 
 
Sohrab Ali Mao  vs.  Province of Sindh 
 
8. 
 
On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant 
Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive 
 
8 
process. On 22.5.1989, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector and on 
8.7.1998, was further promoted as Inspector. On his representation, 
the Petitioner was allowed inter se seniority with his batch-mates 
w.e.f. 11.1.1996, and was confirmed as Inspector w.e.f 11.1.1996, 
vide order dated 20.9.2004,  a series of tentative seniority lists of 
Inspectors were issued and, lastly, on 7.2.2014, a final seniority list of 
Inspectors was issued on the basis of which 80 Inspectors were 
promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police. The Petitioner 
challenged the said seniority list before the Sindh Service Tribunal, by 
filing an Appeal, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.   
 
 
Civil Petition No.532 of 2015.  
 
 
Yar Muhammad Rind vs. Province of Sindh and others.  
 
9. 
 
On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant 
Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive 
process. On 25.1.1990, he was promoted as Sub-Inspector and on 
8.7.1998, he was further promoted as Inspector. On 8.7.2000, he was 
confirmed as Inspector, on acceptance of his representation, whereby, 
he was allowed seniority with his batch-mates w.e.f. 11.1.1996. Many 
seniority lists were issued in the intervening period and ultimately on 
7.2.2014, a final seniority list of Inspectors was issued on the basis of 
which more than 80 Inspectors were promoted as Deputy 
Superintendents of Police. The Petitioner challenged the final 
seniority list dated 7.2.2014, by way of an Appeal before the Sindh 
Service Tribunal, which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.   
                                              
 
 
 
9 
                                                                                                                                      
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.533 of 2015. 
 
 
 
Lal Bux Solangi vs. Province of Sindh 
 
10. 
 
On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant 
Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police, through competitive 
process. On 22.5.1989, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector 
and on 8.7.1998 was further promoted as Inspector. On his 
representation to the Competent Authority, the Petitioner was allowed 
seniority with his batch-mates w.e.f 11.1.1996 and was confirmed as 
Inspector w.e.f 12.1.1998, vide order dated 20.9.2004.  
 
11. 
 
After a series of tentative seniority lists, on 7.2.2014, a 
final seniority list was issued, on the basis of which more than 80 
Inspectors were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police. The 
Petitioner challenged the said seniority list by filing a Service Appeal 
before the Sindh Service Tribunal, which was disposed of by the 
impugned judgment.   
 
Civil Petition No.494 of 2015 
 
 
Gul Hassan Jatoi   vs.  Aijaz Ali Memon and others 
 
12. 
 
On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant 
Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police and on 8.7.1989, he was 
promoted as Sub-Inspector on officiating basis. On 20.9.2004, he was 
confirmed as Sub-Inspector.  He was finally promoted as Deputy 
Superintendent of Police, vide Notification dated 24.3.2014. He was 
one of the Respondents before the Sindh Service Tribunal, in Service 
Appeals filed by the Petitioners Faqir Muhammad Jatoi and others, 
which were disposed of by the Tribunal, vide impugned judgment.   
 
10
 
 
 
 
Civil Petition No.507 of 2015.  
 
 
Abdul Razzak Bugti vs. Yar Muhammad Rind  
 
13. 
 
On 1.1.1987, the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant 
Sub-Inspector in the Sindh Reserve Police. On 25.5.1989, he was 
promoted as Sub-Inspector and transferred to the District Police. In 
the year 2001, he was promoted as Inspector. His name was included 
in the seniority list of Inspectors dated 7.2.2014, which was forwarded 
to the Home Department. On 25.1.2015, a meeting of the DPC was 
convened in which 155 Inspectors were considered for promotion, 
however, they were not notified due to restraining orders passed by 
the Service Tribunal in Service Appeal 134 of 2014 filed by Lal Bux 
Solangi. He was one of the Respondents in the Service Appeals filed 
by Faqir Muhammad Jatoi and others, which were disposed of by the 
Tribunal, vide impugned judgment. 
 
 
 
Civil Petitions No.906 & 911 to 917 of 2015. 
 
 
Government of Sindh vs. Yar Muhammad Rind and others.  
 
14. 
 
The Government of Sindh has filed the above-said 
Petitions against the impugned judgment, pleading that the 
Respondents in the Petitions were appointed as A.S.I in the Sindh 
Reserve Police on various dates. After issuance of the provisional 
seniority lists of the Respondents, objections were called and upon 
receipt of the objections, a Committee was constituted to finalize the 
seniority list, which was issued on 07.02.2014. It has been further 
pleaded that on 20th September, 1972, an order was issued by the 
Sindh Government, creating vacancies for a Special Striking Force in 
 
11
the Sindh Police, which has been wrongly construed as a special 
cadre; that in the aftermath of separation of East Pakistan, language 
riots disrupted in the Province Sindh and certain other parts of the 
country, due to which it was deemed necessary to have Police Force 
available to supplement the existing Police Force in Police Stations 
and Districts in the advent of dire need. This force was created for 
three months but the same continued thereafter; that vide notification 
dated 11.07.1973, the nomenclature of the Special Striking Force was 
changed to the Sindh Constabulary and designations of the officers of 
the Force were also changed. In the said notification it was further 
provided:- 
“The force shall be administered as one provincial reserve 
and its disposition will be decided by the I.G.P from time to 
time according to necessity. 
The Force shall be administered as a part of the Police 
Force and provisions of Police Act, the Police Rules and 
other relevant law shall apply. The officers of this 
constabulary shall exercise such powers of command, 
control, punishment and appeals etc. are exercisable by the 
officers of equivalent rank.” 
15. 
 
It has been further pleaded that, thereafter, a Provincial 
Armed Reserve (PAR) was also created, which was subsequently 
merged in the Sindh Constabulary; that finally on 30.04.1985, the 
Sindh Constabulary and Anti-Dacoit Force was re-designated as the 
Sindh Reserve Police and designations of the officers of the force 
were also changed; that thereafter various administrative and standing 
orders were issued by the Inspector General of Police and concerned 
 
12
Deputy Inspector Generals of Police, without approval of the Sindh 
Government, which were merely administrative orders, for efficient 
organization and guidance of the officers; that during the years 1984 
to 1987, all appointments were made in the Sindh Reserve Police and 
no appointment was made in the Districts, due to administrative 
reasons and after the year 1987, no new recruitment had taken place in 
the Sindh Reserve Police; that Assistant Sub-Inspectors and 
Constables were recruited, from time to time and assigned to work in 
the Sindh Reserve Police, which arrangement was also adopted in the 
Province of Punjab; that the Respondents claiming seniority filed 
Appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal, which were disposed of 
vide impugned judgment.   
 
16. 
 
The Appellants before the Tribunal have filed Civil 
Petitions No.529, 530, 531, 532, 533 of 2015, against the impugned 
judgment. One of the Petitioners in Civil Petitions No.493, 494, 505 
and 506 of 2015, is Gul Hassan Jatoi, who was one of the 
Respondents before the Tribunal. Civil Petitions No.507 and 508 were 
filed by Abdul Razzaq Bugti, who was also Respondent before the 
Tribunal.  Civil Petition No.601 of 2015 is filed by Abdullah, against 
the impugned judgment. The Province of Sindh has challenged the 
impugned judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, before this Court 
in Civil Petitions No.906 and 911 to 917 of 2015.  
 
 
17. 
 
The learned ASC Shahid Anwar Bajwa, Counsel for the 
Inspector General of Police, Sindh, and for the Petitioner Gul Hassan 
Jatoi in C.P.L.A. Nos. 493, 494, 505 and 506 of 2015, has contended 
 
13
that the Police Order 2002 was repealed through the Sindh (Repeal of 
the Police Order 2002 and Revival of the Police Act 1861) 2011 and it 
was the Police Act of 1861 which is currently in force. He made 
reference to various provisions of the Police Act 1861. He stated that 
under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, the entire Police 
Establishment shall be one force; whereas, Section 4 of the Act 
provides that the Inspector General of Police is the Administrator of 
the Police force, Section 5 defines the powers of the Inspector General 
of Police and Section 12 empowers the Inspector General of Police to 
frame rules and pass orders, subject to approval of the Provincial 
Government.  
18. 
 
The learned ASC Mr. Bajwa has contended that Rule 12 
of Chapter XII of the Police Rules 1934, deals with the appointments 
and enrolments in the Police Force. Rule 12.1 deals with the general 
recruitment, Rule 12.3 relates to recruitment to the Prosecution 
service and Rule 12.3(B) pertains to appointment in Technical service. 
He further submits that Rules 17 Chapter XVII of the Police Rules 
pertains to the Reserve Police. The Sub Rules of Rule 17 provide 
permanent reserve, a second reserve mobilized under the orders of 
Inspector General of Police, and a third reserve mobilized on the 
orders of the Government. He has further contended that there was no 
order by the Provincial Government creating the Sindh Reserve Police 
as a separate cadre. He then relied upon Rules 13.18 and 12.3 
contending that these rules are relevant with reference to determining 
the seniority of the Police Personnels.   
 
14
19. 
 
The learned Counsel contended that Rule 9(4) of the 
Fundamental Rules 1922 and Rule 9 of the Sindh Civil Service Rules 
1950, define “Cadre”. In support of his submission that the Sindh 
Reserve Police is not a separate cadre, Mr. Bajwa placed reliance on 
Muhammad Bachal Memon and others vs. Syed Tanveer Hussain 
Shah and others (2014 SCMR 1539), PIAC thr. its Chairman and 
others vs. Samina Masood and others (PLD 2005 SC 831) (Para 11), 
Dr. Ahmad Salman Waris, Assistant Professor, Services Hospital, 
Lahore  vs. Dr. Naeem Akhtar and five others (PLD 1997 SC) 382 
(Para 11, pg.90). He submitted that other provinces are treating their 
Reserve Police as part of their regular police and in support of the 
aforesaid contention he has relied upon Sardar Khursheedul Hassan 
vs.  IGP and others 1991 PLC (C.S.) 208, Muhammad Ali Qureshi 
and 18 others vs. Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Punjab, 
Lahore and others 1994 PLC (C.S.) 449. He states that in light of the 
law laid down by this Court in the case of Tariq Azizuddin and others, 
(2010 SCMR 1301), every employee ought to be considered for 
promotion, subject to the Rules. He submitted that wings created in 
the Police Force by the Inspector General of Police under Section 12 
of the Police Act 1861, with the sole purpose of improving the 
efficiency of the Police Force as a whole.  
20. 
 
The learned ASC Mr. Bajwa submitted that C.P.L.A Nos. 
916 to 917 of 2015 and 454 and 506 of 2015 also arise out of the 
impugned judgment of the Tribunal. He states that the Respondents 
Aijaz Ali Memon and Muhammad Azam Khan had originally filed 
 
15
Writ Petitions before the Sindh High Court, which were later 
transferred / converted as appeals before the Sindh Service Tribunal at 
Karachi and disposed of. The contention in the said service appeals, 
which were originally Writ Petitions, was that the Sindh Reserve 
Police was a different cadre. He submitted that on the other hand, 
C.P.L.A Nos. 906, 911 to 914, 493 and 505 of 2015, pertain to 
persons who were recruited in the Sindh Reserve Police along with 
other Private Respondents. He drew our attention to para 4, at pg. 80 
of the impugned judgment (Pg.102 of C.P.L.A. No.493/2015) to press 
the point that one of the Appellants before the Tribunal, namely Yar 
Muhammad Rind, was unable to show from the record, as to when he 
was confirmed or promoted and that the onus lay on him to prove his 
own case.  
21. 
 
The learned ASC  Mr. Bajwa,  then drew our attention to 
pg.216 of C.P.L.A. No.493 of 2015, submitting that one of the 
Appellants before the Tribunal namely Lal Bux Solangi filed an 
application to withdraw his Appeal, which was not decided. He states 
that under Rule 1, Order 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if a 
party applies for withdrawal of its Appeal, it ought to have been 
accepted. Mr Bajwa contended that it was only Lal Bux Solangi who 
had filed an Application for grant of interim injunction, which was 
granted by the Tribunal and, as such, if his Application to withdraw 
the Appeal was decided, the stay granted on his Application in Appeal 
would automatically stand vacated on withdrawal of his Appeal.  
 
16
22. 
 
Mr. Bajwa further contended that Rafique Ahmed Abbasi 
(one of the Appellants before the Service Tribunal and the Respondent 
in C.P.L.A. No.915 / 2015) had no service record at all. 
23. 
 
The learned Advocate General Sindh, Mr. Abdul Fateh 
Malik, commenced his arguments by responding to one of our queries 
as to how many Ranges were there in the Sindh Police. He has 
referred to Rule 1.3 of the Police Rules 1934 and states that each 
District under the Police Rules is divided into an administrative 
establishment. He states that Rule 1.4 of the Police Rules 1934, 
pertains to Ranges and further relied upon Rule 2.1 of the said Rules. 
He submitted that Rule 1.3 of the Police Rules 1934, was amended on 
22.08.1998, vide notification issued by the Government of Sindh, 
under Section 46 of the Police Act 1861.  
24. 
 
The learned Advocate General submitted that by virtue of 
Section 2 of the Police Act 1861, the entire police establishment was 
one force and to substantiate his contention relied upon Rule 1.5 of 
the Police Rules 1934. He then read out Rule 17.9 of the Police Rules 
1934, contending that the Rule pertains to the First Armed Reserve. 
He, with some noticeable hesitation, stated that there were in all 5 
Ranges in the Sindh Police. He conceded that Standing Orders issued 
by the Inspector General of Police at times were without prior 
sanction of the Government.  
25. 
 
One of us (Amir Hani Muslim, J) inquired from the 
learned Advocate General Sindh, that if the Police, as per his own 
contentions, was one force, then why was the seniority of a police 
 
17
officer disturbed upon his transfer from one Range to another? In 
response, the learned Advocate General Sindh, very candidly 
conceded that the issue of seniority in the aforesaid situation is 
something that needs to be attended to. On further enquiry as to how 
seniority of a Police Officer on transfer is affected, the Advocate 
General Sindh has relied upon Rule 12.2 of the Police Rules 1934.  
26. 
 
The Advocate General was asked to pin point the Police 
Rule under which an Officer’s seniority on his transfer from one 
District to another District or from one Range to another Range is 
required to be placed at the bottom of the seniority list maintained by 
the District or the Range to which he is transferred. At this juncture, a 
representative of the Home Department Sindh intervened and 
submitted that, although there was no provision in the Police Rules 
1934, which provides for placing the seniority of a Police Personnel at 
the bottom on his transfer to another District or Range, recourse in 
this respect could be made to the Civil Servant Seniority Rules 1975, 
which do provide such mechanism. The Advocate General Sindh, 
however, unequivocally submitted that there should be one seniority 
list. The Advocate General Sindh further contended that there are a 
large number of cases where officers were not confirmed after lapse 
of 2 years.  
27. 
 
The learned Advocate General Sindh, concluded his 
arguments by submitting that the learned tribunal erred in law in 
holding (at para 72(i) of the impugned judgment) that all branches of 
the Police are separate cadres and contended that it was only the 
 
18
Prosecution Branch, the Telecom Branch and the Female Police which 
could be categorized separately as cadres and prayed that the said 
finding of the Tribunal should be set aside. He further submitted that 
para 72 (ii) of the impugned judgment may also be set aside. The 
learned Advocate General Sindh placed reliance on the case reported 
as IGP, Punjab, Lahore and others  vs.  Mushtaq Ahmed Warraich 
and others  (PLD 1985 SC 159) (Pg.161) and Muhammad Nadeem Arif 
and others vs. IGP, Punjab, Lahore and others  (2011 SCMR 408) 
(Pg.415).  
 
28. 
 
In regard to the confirmation of Police Officers,             
Mr. Naeem Sheikh, AIG (Establishment) Sindh Police, contended that 
under Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules 1934, the probation period for 
persons appointed directly as Assistant Sub-Inspectors was 3 years 
whereas, under Rule 13.18 period of probation of a Assistant Sub- 
Inspector appointed by promotion was 2 years. He submitted that 
there was wisdom in the said Rule, as someone who had been 
promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, would naturally have 
accumulated more experience than compared to persons directly 
appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors and as such the probation 
period for directly appointed Assistant Sub-Inspectors should in 
principle be longer. The AIG (Establishment) states that the 
probation period provided in the Police Rules is followed. The 
AIG further stated that all cases with respect to seniority etc. should 
be reverted back to the date of appointment. He concluded by stating 
 
19
that Rule 1.3 to 1.6 of the Police Rules 1934, should be implemented 
in letter and spirit.  
 
29. 
 
On a query of the Court as to whether there was any 
training or examinations prescribed for persons appointed in the Sindh 
Reserve Police, Mr. Naeem Sheikh, AIG (Establishment) Sindh 
Police, apprised us that under Rule 19.25 of the Police Rules, 1934, 
persons appointed to the Regular Police were required to undergo 
training for a period of one year at Police Training School and 2 years 
of practical training. However, he frankly conceded that none of these 
requirements were complied with for the induction of persons to the 
Sindh Reserve Police, as the same was not an investigative force. He 
however, submitted that when the Sindh Reserve Police was 
transferred to the districts, it became apparent that they were not 
adequately trained and as a consequence thereof, Standing Order 
No.125 of 1994, was issued mandating certain training courses for 
persons belonging to the Sindh Reserve Police. He further made an 
unequivocal statement that all officers appointed to the Sindh Reserve 
Police, subsequent to 1994, have undergone the requisite training 
courses and as of today, the training for induction into both the Sindh 
Reserve Police and the Regular Police is similar.  
 
30. 
 
At the very outset, Mr. Iftikhar Gillani, Counsel for the 
Petitioner in C.P.No.601 of 2015, stated that his client was not a party 
to the proceeding before the Tribunal but was adversely affected by 
the impugned judgment and has therefore filed the instant Petition. He 
 
20
contended that his arguments would be confined to whether the 
Tribunal was vested with the jurisdiction to dispose of the Service 
Appeals in the manner it has done so.  
31. 
 
He contended that Section 5 of the Sindh Service 
Tribunal Act and Section 5 of the Federal Service Tribunal Act 1973, 
are in Pari Materia and the said provision is to be read in conjunction 
with Article 175(2) of the Constitution. He contended that directions 
of the nature, which had been given by the Tribunal in the impugned 
judgment, may only be given by the Honorable Superior Courts whilst 
exercising their Constitutional Jurisdiction under Article 184(3) and 
199 of the Constitution. He further submitted that the Tribunal can 
only give directions in personam and not directions in rem and that 
the Tribunal has gone beyond its jurisdiction and given directions 
which only this Court can give under Article 187 of the Constitution 
i.e. directions which are not prayed for.  
32. 
 
He submitted that even the Honorable High Courts 
cannot give directions which are not prayed for but, on the contrary, 
may only mould the relief. Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned 
Senior ASC contended that the Tribunal has proceeded to do complete 
justice, a power that is only vested with this Court under Article 187 
of the Constitution. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance 
on the case reported as Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd and others  Vs. M/s 
Travels Shop Pvt Ltd. and others (PLD 2014 SC 1) (Para 4, Pg.39).   
 
 
21
33. 
 
Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Senior ASC, in 
rebuttal to Mr. Aqil Awan’s submission that, by virtue of Article 212 
of the Constitution, the Tribunal was vested with powers much wider 
in scope than those exercised by the Superior Courts of this Country, 
submitted that this might be true, but only with respect to an 
individual and not to entire cadre or Police Force.  
34. 
 
Mr. Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, learned ASC for the 
Petitioner in C.P.Nos.507 to 508 of 2015, submitted that he adopts the 
arguments of Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Senior ASC for the 
Petitioner in C.P.No.601 of 2015.  
35. 
 
Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, learned ASC for the 
Petitioners in C.P. Nos.529 to 533 of 2015, contended that the learned 
Tribunal had erred by holding that Sindh Reserve Police was a 
different cadre. He submitted that Section 2 of the Police Act 1861, 
was clear that the entire Police Establishment shall deemed to be one 
force. With reference to seniority, he contended that Range wise 
seniority was clearly creating problems.  
 
36. 
 
Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC for the Respondents 
in C.P.Nos.494 and 506 of 2015, contended that there were two issues 
before the Tribunal. The first issue was whether the Sindh Reserve 
Police was a separate cadre, which the Tribunal answered in the 
affirmative by holding that it was a separate cadre. The second issue 
before the Tribunal, was whether the standing orders issued by the 
Inspector General of Police, Sindh, were legal or not. On this count, 
 
22
the Tribunal was of the view that they were illegal.  The learned 
Counsel submitted that there was no dispute with respect to the 
legality of the Standing Orders and it was agreed that they were 
illegal, therefore, the only point that remained to be answered was 
whether the Sindh Reserve Police was a separate cadre or not.  
37. 
 
Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC, contended that 
persons ranging from Head Constable to the level of Inspector fell 
within the category of Upper Subordinates and that the seniority for 
such Upper Subordinates was to be maintained under Rule 12.2(3) of 
the Police Rules 1934. In support of his submissions, he placed 
reliance on IGP, Punjab, Lahore and others  vs.  Mushtaq Ahmed 
Warraich and others  (PLD 1985 SC 159) (Pg.177) and Neimat Ali 
Goraya and others  vs. Jaffar Abbas, Inspector/Sergeant Traffic etc 
(1996 SCMR 826). He submitted that the prevalent practice was that 
the tentative seniority list was being made the basis of promotion.  
38. 
 
With respect to the Sindh Reserve Police being a separate 
cadre, Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC, contended that the Sindh 
Reserve Police maintained a different seniority list, which indicates 
that it is a separate cadre. He further contended that absorption does 
not take place within the same cadre and as such, the fact that persons 
are absorbed into the Regular Police from the Sindh Reserve Police, in 
itself implies that the Sindh Reserve Police is a separate cadre. He 
contended that the Inspector General of Police has referred to the 
Sindh Reserve Police as a separate cadre in his Standing Orders, in 
addition to it being consistently treated as a separate cadre at the 
 
23
departmental level. In this behalf he drew our attention to para 46 of 
the impugned judgment.  
39. 
 
To an observation of this Court that the Police should 
have a centralized seniority mechanism in place, Mr. M.M.Aqil 
Awan, ASC, submitted that the duration of training and courses for 
persons inducted and appointed to the Sindh Reserve Police and the 
Regular Police are different. The Regular / District Police is required 
to complete courses A, B and C as prescribed under Rule 19.25 of the 
Police Rules 1934, and there is no such requirement for the Sindh 
Reserve Police. The learned Counsel further submitted that although 
under Section 2 of the Police Act 1861, the Police Establishment is 
one Police Force, the IT, Prosecution and Women Branch are different 
cadres, each having their own recruitment rules within that one Police 
Force. The factum of there being multiple cadres within one Police 
Force is not a departure from Section 2 of the Police Act 1861.  
40. 
 
In order to draw a distinction between a wing of the 
Police and a cadre, Mr. M.M.Aqil Awan, ASC, stated that Traffic 
Police and the Anti Terrorist Squad were wings of the Police and they 
shared the same seniority list with the Regular Police and as such 
were part of the same. He submitted that the Sindh Reserve Police, on 
the contrary, maintained its own seniority list and therefore this was 
further proof of its being a separate cadre and not a wing of the 
Regular Police.  
 
 
24
41. 
 
Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC for the Respondents, 
submitted that all the irregularities in the preparation of the seniority 
list by the Police are brought to light upon a reading of paras’ 41 to 45 
of the impugned judgment and that these findings have not been 
controverted either before the Tribunal or before this Court. He 
submitted that the Inspector General of Police has unbridled and blind 
powers. He contended that it was the Inspector General of Police who 
sanctioned horizontal movement and it was he, who made wings 
within the Police. He further submitted that, if there was a clog or 
fetter on the unbridled powers of the Inspector General of Police, it 
was under Section 12 of the Police Act 1861, which mandates the 
prior approval of the Provincial Government. In this behalf Mr. M. M. 
Aqil Awan, learned ASC placed reliance on Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan, 
D.S.P. and others  Vs.  Province of Punjab through Home Secretary 
and others (PLD 1985 SC 195) at pg.204. He stated that the aforesaid 
judicial pronouncement has laid down the scope of Section 12 of the 
Police Act 1861, and the same has been continuously violated by the 
Inspector General of Police. He submitted that it was the Inspector 
General of Police who made the Sindh Reserve Police and it was he, 
who had been transferring Assistant Sub-Inspectors back and forth. 
The learned Counsel submitted that the question that begged to be 
answered was how the continuous violation of Section 12 of the 
Police Act 1861, may be stopped. He stated that one way to stop the 
said violation had been laid down by the Tribunal through the 
impugned judgment.  
 
25
42. 
 
Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC submitted that the 
Tribunal while deciding the Appeals pending before it had not ignored 
Section 2 of the Police Act 1861. He stated that Section 2 of the Act 
does not stipulate that there shall be one cadre, but that there shall be 
one Police Force. His contention was that Section 2 of the Act was to 
be read with Rule 1.3 of the Police Rules 1934, and it was through this 
Rule that cadres had been created. He further contended that the word 
“Cadre” and “Administrative Unit” have not been defined, either in 
the Police Act 1861, or in the Police Rules 1934. He submitted that if 
the Police Rules were silent on a subject, the Civil Service Laws 
would hold the field, as long as the latter were not inconsistent with 
the former. Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC, submitted that 
“Cadre” has been defined under Rule 9(4) of the Fundamental Rules 
1922, as well as under Rule 9(8) of the Sindh Civil Services Rules 
1950, with the latter definition also having been adopted by the 
Tribunal in the impugned judgment. He placed reliance on a recent 
judgment of this Court, reported as Muhammad Bachal Memon and 
others vs. Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah and others (2014 SCMR 1539) 
(Pg.1549) wherein “Cadre” has been defined and submitted that on 
the touchstone of the aforesaid judgment, the said definition would 
also apply to the Police Act 1861, and the Police Rules 1934.  
43. 
 
The learned ASC, further contended that ipso facto, the 
Police Rules 1934, did not apply to the Sindh Reserve Police, as it 
came into being through a Standing Order issued in 1970. He 
submitted that persons appointed to the Sindh Reserve Police had 
 
26
undergone only a year of training which was in clear contravention of 
Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules 1934. He, with great force and fervor, 
contended that the Sindh Reserve Police cannot be a part of the 
Regular Police Force as it had not seen the rigors of Rule 12.8 of the 
Police Rules 1934. With reference to confirmation, Mr. M. M. Aqil 
Awan, learned ASC, contended that Rule 19.25 had to be read with 
Rule 13.18 of the Police Rules 1934. He next contended that the 
Inspector General of Police’s unfettered powers ought to be curtailed 
with respect to transfers and the creation of wings etc. He submitted 
that one way of achieving the aforesaid objectives is that recruitment 
rules should be made, thereby channelizing the Inspector General of 
Police’s unbridled powers. He submitted that even otherwise, the 
Inspector General of Police cannot alter the conditions of service of 
persons in the Police Force. He submitted that, on the touchstone of 
Article 240(b) of the Constitution, the same was within the sole 
competence and exclusive domain of the provincial legislature.  
44. 
 
Replying to the arguments of Mr. Iftikhar Hussain 
Gillani, learned Senior ASC for the Petitioner in C.P.No.601 of 2015, 
on the question of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to issue directions as 
it had whilst disposing of the Appeals, Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan 
submitted that by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution there was a 
bar on the High Court, and on this Court as well, to issue directions of 
the like that can be issued by the Service Tribunal. He submitted that 
the Tribunals powers, whilst adjudicating upon a lis before it, were 
wide ranging in scope and in support of his submission he relied upon 
 
27
Pakistan Railways thr. its GM  Vs. Ghulam Rasul (1997 SCMR 1581) 
(1587) and Ali Muhammad Vs. Commissioner Afghan Refuges NWFP 
etc (1995 SCMR 1675). Mr. M. M. Aqil Awan, learned ASC 
concluded his arguments by submitting that, on the question of the 
Sindh Reserve Police being a different cadre than the Regular Police 
Force, the Tribunal dealt with the said question in a comprehensive 
manner and referred to paras’ 52 to 53, 56, 64, 66 and 68 of the 
impugned judgment.  
 
45. 
 
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants, 
the learned Advocate General, Sindh, and the Counsels representing 
the Respondents at length and with their assistance have perused the 
record.  
 
46. 
 
Before we could travel into the scheme of the Police Act 
and the Rules framed thereunder, it has been conceded by the learned 
Advocate General, Sindh, that the Standing Orders issued at times by 
the different I.G Police were without the approval of the Provincial 
Government and, therefore, did not have any legal status. In view of 
this conceding statement of the Advocate General, no argument was 
advanced by either party to the validity or otherwise of the Standing 
Orders issued by the I.Gs Police at times.  
 
47. 
 
On the examination of the scheme of the Police Act 
1861, we have noticed that Section 2 of the Police Act speaks of the 
constitution of the police force. Section 2 is reproduced hereunder:- 
 
28
“The entire police establishment under a Provincial 
Government shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed 
to be one police force and shall be formally enrolled and 
shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall 
be constituted in such manner, as shall from time to time be 
ordered by the Provincial Government.”  
 
 
Section 3 confers powers on the Provincial Government to 
supersede or control any police functionary. Section 4 confers powers 
upon the Inspector General of Police as its administrative head. 
Section 7 speaks of appointments within the police force. Section 12 
confers powers on the I.G.P to frame such orders and rules from time 
to time, subject to the approval of the Provincial Government, relative 
to the organization, classification and distribution of the police force, 
the places at which the members of the force shall reside, and the 
particular services to be performed by them.  
 
48. 
 
On scanning the Police Rules, 1934, we have noticed that 
Chapter-I of the Rules relates to departmental organization of the 
police. Rule 1.1 defines General Police District with further 
clarification that all ranks of police employed in the province are 
appointed or enrolled under section 2 of the Act. Rule 1.2 confers 
powers on the I.G.P which are in the nature of command, discipline 
and administration. Rule 1.3 defines General Police District Division, 
which provides the structure of the Sindh Police categorized in 
different establishments:- 
i. 
Training Schools (including Provincial Finger 
Print Bureau) 
 
 
 
ii. 
Special Branch. 
 
29
iii. 
Crimes Branch. 
iv. 
District Police. 
v. 
Reserve Police Establishment (inserted through 
Government notification dated 22.09.1998, by 
amending the Rules). 
 
49. 
 
Rule 1.4 defines the administration of the aforesaid 
establishments.  
a.  The district of the province as grouped in range 
headed by the Officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector 
General of Police. 
 
b. The affairs of Police Training Centre, Sihala, initially 
was headed by the Officer of the rank of the Deputy 
Inspector General of Police. In Sindh subsequently 
different Police Training Centers were established, 
which now are under the command of Deputy 
Inspector General of Police Training Branch. 
 
c. Crime Branch is headed by the officer of the rank of 
Deputy Inspector General of Police. 
 
d. Special Branch is headed by the officer of the rank of 
Deputy Inspector General of Police.  
 
e. The reserve police establishment now styled as Sindh 
Reserve Police is headed by Deputy Inspector General 
of Police. 
 
50. 
 
Rule 1.5 prescribes the limits of jurisdiction and liability 
to transfer, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced 
hereunder:- 
“All police officers appointed or enrolled in Pakistan general 
police district constitute one police force and are liable to, and 
legally empowered for, police duty anywhere within the 
province. No sub-division of the force territorially or by classes, 
such as mounted and foot police, affects this principle.” 
 
51. 
 
Rule 1.6 defines the administration and functions of 
D.I.G Police appointed in different establishments specified in Rule 
1.3, which is reproduced hereunder:- 
 
30
“Deputy Inspectors-General—Duties and functions of.- The 
Deputy Inspector-General of Police Crime, Special Branch and 
Crime Branch and Special Branch. 
 
The Deputy Inspector-General, Crime Branch is 
responsible, through the staff of his department, for the 
intelligence organization of the criminal administration; in this 
capacity he is called upon to assist both the Provincial 
Government and the district authorities. He is also authorized to 
call upon the district or railway police for action in such 
matters, whether in respect of crime or intelligence as may, from 
time to time, be considered to his charge. In respect of crime, 
Department of Police Crime Branch will keep the Deputy 
Inspectors General of Police a Special Branch, a Crime Branch 
the ranges concerned fully informed of all action which his 
department is taking within the sphere of their jurisdiction. 
 
The Deputy Inspector-General of a range is responsible 
to the Inspector General for the administration, training and 
discipline of the police of his range and for the efficiency of their 
organization and operations for the prevention and detection of 
crime. In the exercise of this responsibility a Deputy Inspector 
General will interfere as little as possible with the executive 
authority of the Superintendents under him, and will permit such 
modifications of practice and organization to suit local 
conditions as he may consider advisable, and as the law and 
these rules allow. He will use his powers of control to secure a 
uniform standard of efficiency and the fullest co-operation 
between districts and branches of the force in the circulation of 
information and in action against criminals.  
 
To ensure that efficiency shall not be impaired by undue 
variation in methods or practice in different parts of the 
province, Deputy Inspector-General of Ranges and of the Crime 
Branch shall maintain close touch with each other by informal 
meetings and formal conferences. They shall freely exchange 
information relating to the criminal administration, and shall 
ensure that co-operation between ranges and branches of the 
force is as close as that between the district within a range. 
Before issuing any circular order having the effect of altering in 
principle any matter of departmental practice or affecting the 
administration of the law, Deputy Inspector General shall obtain 
the approval of the Inspector General. Copies of all such 
circular orders and of instructions of general importance 
whether previously approved by the Inspector General or not, 
 
31
shall be sent to the Inspector-General and other Deputy 
Inspectors-General for information.” 
 
52. 
 
The rule defines the parameters of the powers of all the 
Deputy Inspector General of Police in the Police Force with the 
distinction that the Range Deputy Inspector General of Police has the 
power of administration, training and discipline of the forces within 
his statutory Range, which shall include all the Police personnel 
initially in his range and transferred to any other establishment under 
the Police Rules. The aforesaid arrangement under Rule 1.6 further 
has to be read with Rule 1.5, which provides that all police officers 
appointed or enrolled in any establishment shall be construed as one 
police force of the District and is obliged to and legally empowered 
for Police duty anywhere within the province. This Rule even restricts 
the sub-division in Police territorially by creating class such as 
mounted and foot police, which may otherwise militate the scheme of 
the Police Act. 
 
53. 
 
The appointments and enrollments of the Police 
Personnel are regulated by Rule 12 of the Police Rules, 1934 of 
Chapter XII, which deals with three different sets of recruitment 
processes described thereunder: - 
 
 
a. Recruitment in prosecution (Legal Branch), Rule 12.6(3)(C). 
b. Recruitment of Technical District, Rule 12.3 (B) 
c. Recruitment of upper subordinate in Police, Rule 12.6. 
 
 
 
There is a difference in the training courses of the 
personnel appointed in the aforementioned units as prescribed in the 
Police Rules.  
 
 
32
a. Training of personnel: - 
i. 
Constables, Rule 19.2 
ii. 
Upper subordinate, Rule 19.25 
 
b. Training of officers in prosecution (Legal Branch), Rule 19.26. 
c. Training of the officers in Technical District, Rule 12.3 (B) (2). 
Rules 12.6 (3) (e) suggests that:  
“(e) After recruitment no Inspector (Legal) shall 
be allowed change of cadre from Inspector (Legal) 
to the Executive of any other Branch in the Police 
Department.” 
 
 
54. 
 
On the basis of the aforementioned criteria of recruitment 
and training in terms of the Rules referred to hereinabove, it can be 
easily concluded that the Sindh Police force has three independent 
units i.e. Executive, Technical District and Prosecution (Legal). On 
scanning of the rules, it can be further concluded that the Police 
personnel appointed in terms of the aforesaid recruitment process 
cannot horizontally travel to any other unit referred to hereinabove 
either by way of transfer or otherwise.  
55. 
We may, however, observe that Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, 
1934 provides recruitment process and training program from 
Constable to Inspector in the Police Establishment (Executive Unit) is 
common.  
56. 
There are six (06) promotion lists maintained in the Police 
Department as per seniority and qualification (Trainings and 
Promotional Courses) of the personnel in various ranks i.e.: - 
 
33
i. 
List-A, maintained in the District for Constables having 3 
years’ successful completion of probationary period and 
found fit for promotion to the List-B. (Rule 13.6). 
ii. 
List-B, maintained in the District for Constables, who are 
present in List-A and found eligible to be sent to Lower 
School Course, which is a promotional training for 
promotion to the rank of HC. (Rule 13.7) 
iii. 
List-C, maintained in the District for Constables, who 
have qualified Lower School Course and are eligible for 
promotion to the rank of Head Constable. (Rule 13.8). 
iv. 
List-D, prepared in the District and forwarded to the 
Range DIGP for approval and maintenance of seniority 
list. This list includes Head Constables eligible for the 
promotion to the rank of ASI after successful completion 
of Intermediate School Course. (Rule 13.9) 
v. 
List-E, maintained by the Range DIGPs, containing 
confirmed ASIs, who are eligible for promotion to the 
rank of Sub-Inspectors. (Rule 13.10) 
 
vi. 
List-F, prepared by CPO on the recommendation of 
Range DIGPs and maintained by Central Police Office 
(CPO) on centralized basis, containing confirmed Sub-
Inspectors, who have qualified Upper School Course and 
are eligible for the promotion to the rank of Inspectors. 
(Rules 13.15). 
 
57. 
 
Under the Police Rules, 1934, the seniority of the 
Constable and Head Constable is maintained in the District, whereas 
seniority of ASI and SI is maintained by the Range DIG. The seniority 
of the Inspector in Police is maintained by the Central Police Office. 
The training and examination of the Executive Unit is provided in 
Chapter XIX of the Police Rules.  
58. 
 
Now with this background, we feel that we should also 
examine as to how Sindh Reserve Police was raised. In order to 
understand the establishment of Sindh Reserve Police, we have gone 
through Chapter XVII, which deals with the Head Quarters 
 
34
Establishments and Reserves in Police Force. It appears that under the 
aforesaid Chapter reserves are created in the following chronology. 
59. 
 
Rule 17.9 (1) of the Police Rules, 1934 spells out the first 
armed reserve, Rule 17.10 speaks of mobilization of the second 
reserve and Rule 17.11 defines the mobilization of third reserve. In 
the aforesaid rules, the first armed reserve is the Regular Police in 
District maintained by the Superintendent of Police or Senior 
Superintendent of Police of the District and is moved under the orders 
of the respective range DIG of Police or Inspector General of Police. 
The mobilization of second reserve takes place under the orders of the 
Inspector General of Police, whereas mobilization of third reserve is 
under the orders of the Provincial Government (Chief Minister 
through Inspector General of Police).  
60. 
The aforesaid three “Provincial Reserves”, by a Notification 
dated 01.7.1980 were combined together and made part of Sindh 
Constabulary Force with effect from 01.7.1980. The “Provincial 
Armed Reserves” on its merger became the Sindh Constabulary; 
before the merger of the aforesaid unit, it was regulated by the District 
Police under Rule 17.9, 17.10 and 17.11 of the Police Rules, 1934. By 
another Notification dated 03.4.1985 of the Sindh Government, the 
‘Sindh Constabulary’ was renamed as ‘Sindh Reserve Police’ and was 
given under the command of DIG, Training and Sindh Reserve Police.  
61. 
We were informed during the hearing that the recruitment 
process adopted for the aforesaid personnel of Sindh Reserve Police 
was common to that of a District Police in terms of the Police Rules as 
 
35
initially they were given the training through Police Training Centers. 
There is an additional requirement of acquiring practical training in 
terms of Rule 19.25, which the Sindh Reserve Police personnel did 
not acquire till 1992.  
62. 
 
The issue cropped up when on 30.6.2010, a Standing 
Order No.243 of 2010 was issued by the then Inspector General of 
Police declaring Training Branch Establishment as a Range. On 
account of this Standing Order, the DIG, training branch 
establishment was unauthorizedly conferred administrative powers of 
DIG range. The DIG training branch started recruitment of the Police 
Constables as provided under the Police Rules. He also started 
maintaining the seniority of all the Police personnel serving in the 
training branch establishment against the language of the Police 
Rules. The Standing Order referred to hereinabove was admittedly 
issued without the approval of the government, which is a mandatory 
requirement. Even otherwise aforementioned Standing Order is 
beyond the authority of the Inspector General of Police as the Rules 
do not confer upon him powers to alter the terms and conditions of 
any of the establishment within the Police Force. The situation further 
aggravated when the then DIG, Sindh Reserve Police usurped the 
administrative powers of the range DIG unilaterally. He started 
recruiting the Police personnel in the manner provided under the 
Police Rules, which was beyond his authority. The seniority of the 
Police personnel serving within the Sindh Reserve Police 
establishment, which ought to have been maintained in their 
 
36
respective Ranges, was also maintained by him illegally. Neither any 
Standing Order nor any other instrument authorized the DIG, Sindh 
Reserve Police to exercise administrative powers of the nature. 
Likewise, the Special Branch also recruited the Police personnel and 
maintained their seniority within their establishment through the DIG 
heading the establishment. However, the DIG Crime Branch 
establishment neither exercised the administrative powers of the 
Range DIG nor recruited any Police personnel, even the seniority of 
the Police personnel serving in the establishment was not maintained 
by him. In other words, the very Standing Order of 30.6.2010 
declaring training branch establishment as a Range ex-facie was in 
violation of Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 read with Rule 1.5 of 
the Police Rules, 1934, whereas the administrative powers unilaterally 
exercised by the DIG, Sindh Reserve Police establishment and Special 
Branch establishment were against the spirit of the Police Act and 
Rules.  
63. 
In the aforesaid events, when these three establishments 
usurped the powers of the range DIG without any sanction of law, the 
entire purpose of the Police Act and the Rules of 1934 was defeated. 
Under the Police Rules all foot Constables appointed by this 
establishment were given the training as provided to the Executive 
Police Force, however, the Sindh Reserve Police establishment also 
recruited ASIs in the same manner as is being done by the other 
establishments, but they were not given the practical training as 
provided under Police Rule 19.25. Subsequent thereto, after the 
 
37
issuance of Standing Order 1992, the practical training under Rule 
19.25 was made mandatory for the Police personnel of Sindh Reserve 
Police establishment. 
64. 
 
During hearing of the appeals, the AIG (Establishment) 
informed us that some Police personnel of the Sindh Reserve Police 
sought their transfer from Sindh Reserve Police establishment to 
executive Police establishment. Upon this request, a Standing Order 
No.119 of 1992 dated 08.9.1992 was issued by the Inspector General 
of Police acceding to their request subject to their obtaining practical 
training provided under the Police Rules. Since the issuance of the 
Standing Order all the Police personnel recruited in the Sindh Reserve 
Police establishment were made to undertake practical training and at 
present within the establishments all the personnel of the Police have 
obtained practical training in terms of Chapter XIX of the Police 
Rules, 1934. 
65. 
We are disturbed in the manner the powers were being 
exercised by the DIGs heading different establishments under the nose 
of the government, which was not only against the Police Rules but 
such practice has actually divided the Police Force. The 
establishments, were created to facilitate the smooth working of the 
Police. There is no concept of cadre within the Police, which is one 
indivisible force. However, as referred to hereinabove the Police Rules 
prescribe three modes in recruiting the Police personnel. The first 
recruitment mode is appointment of the Executive Police, the second 
recruitment mode, which has a different set of Rules refers to 
 
38
appointment of technical District Police and the third mode brings the 
recruitment of the Inspectors / Sub-Inspectors Prosecution (Legal). 
There can be employees in the Police Department, which are non-
uniformed like ministerial staff and / or I.T. Department but they are 
recruited and regulated by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the 
Rules framed thereunder. 
66. 
The learned Service Tribunal has misconstrued Rule 1.3 of the 
Police Rules, under which different establishments were made in the 
Police Force to facilitate the smooth working. By erroneous 
assumption of the powers under the Standing Order or otherwise, the 
DIGs, who were heading the establishments construed the 
establishment as Ranges. Additionally, all the administrative powers 
conferred on the Range DIG, i.e who heads the Executive Police 
Range, were encroached on by the heads of these establishments 
created under the Rule 1.4. The said DIGs of the establishments also 
started maintaining seniority and making recruitments to these 
establishments, in negation of the clear language of the Police Rules. 
These actions of the heads of the establishments ex-facie militate the 
provisions of Police Act and Rules which provide the Police Force as 
one indivisible Force. The learned Service Tribunal loosing sight of 
the fact that these establishments cannot be construed as Ranges in the 
first place had directed the government to give them the status of 
cadres, inter alia, on the ground of their respective functions 
performed by the personnel in these establishments. The concept of 
cadre has neither been defined in the Police Act nor by the rules 
 
39
framed thereunder. Though the term ‘Cadre’, has been used in Police 
Rule 12.6(3)(e). Even in the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 or the 
rules framed thereunder, the cadre has not been defined. However, the 
term ‘Cadre’ has been defined in Rule 9(4) of the Fundamental Rules, 
1992. The said Rule defines “Cadre” means the strength of a service 
or a part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit.” 
67. 
We have further noticed that the concept of ‘Cadre’ within the 
Police service could only be introduced if it is established that the 
recruitment process, the training and practical training of the members 
of Police Force is distinct.  Under the Police Rules, entry point of all 
the Police personnel in Executive Police is common. They have 
common recruitment process, police training and practical training as 
prescribed under the Rules and once these trainings after their 
appointments are completed, they are transferred to the different 
establishments under the Rules. The posting and transfer to an 
establishment of a member of Police Force is permissible under Police 
Rule 1.5 would not change the Cadre of a police personnel. The Rule 
1.5 allows the police personnel to progress vertically by the rules 
prescribed and could be transferred to any of the establishment. There 
is no restriction placed on a police official for transfer from one 
establishment to other. 
68.  
Moreover, section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 leaves no doubt or 
ambiguity as to the fact that the Police Force is an indivisible entity 
that is commanded by Inspector General of Police, who has vast 
powers; subject to the approval of the government, he can frame 
 
40
orders or rules with regard to the organization, classification and 
distribution of police force. In other words, the aforesaid provision 
enables the IG Police to caters to the situation, where it is expedient 
for him to issue such orders and make such rules, with the approval of 
the government, as are required to meet the contingencies related to, 
inter alia, prevention and detection of crimes.   
69.  
The learned Tribunal has erred in treating the different 
establishments created under the Police rules, 1.4 as various Cadres 
classified on functional basis; whereas the overall scheme of Police 
Act, 1861 and the rules 1934 envisage the police forces one 
indivisible body possessing various establishments performing the 
assigned functions such as District Police, Police Training Center, 
Crime Branch, Special Branch, Reserve Police and so on. Each of 
these establishments are in fact integral parts of the police force, and 
under no rules of construction they can be construed as separate or 
independent Cadres.    
70.  
Therefore, the directions of the learned Tribunal to the 
government to create Cadres in substitution of the establishments is 
neither warranted by the Act nor by the Rules and will lead to 
anomalies as has happened in the case in hand, where the DIGs of 
different establishments started exercising the administrative powers 
of the Range DIGs.  
71.  
We are clear in our mind that there should be common seniority 
of Police Personnel serving in all the establishments to be maintained 
by District Police, the Range DIG and Central Police Office (C.P.O.) 
 
41
strictly as provided by the Rules in Chapter XIII, as discussed in Para 
56 supra. Therefore, the Sindh Government and the competent 
authority under the Police Rules shall prepare the common seniority 
list of the Police Personnel serving in different establishments within 
three (03) months of the date of this judgment in terms of Police Rules 
and report compliance.  
72.  
Likewise, we are clear in our mind that all the establishments, 
other than the executive police establishment, i.e., in-charge District 
police and Range DIG, are barred from making direct or indirect 
recruitment or promotion.  
73.  
Being the custodian of the service record etc. of the Police 
personnel, the District police/Range DIG, shall make selection for 
Police personnel for police training and practical training, and no 
other establishment shall be authorized to make such selection. By 
way of clarification it may be observed that the matters related to 
seniority, promotion or trainings in respect of Police Inspector, the 
competent authority is Inspector General of Police, as provided in the 
rules 1934.  
74.  
It has been observed that in many cases the Police personnel 
have completed their statutory period of probation but they were not 
confirmed for want of notification, and as result of which such 
officials have suffered in terms of delayed promotion or loss of 
seniority, which is a sheer negligence and abuse of power on the part 
of the competent authorities concerned. Hence, we are of the view that 
this practice must be brought to an effective end so that injustice may 
 
42
not be perpetrated against such officials. Therefore, in future those 
Police Personnel who have completed their statutory period of 
probation, whether it is three years or two years, they shall stand 
confirmed whether or not a notification to that effect is issued.  
75.  
We have further observed that a cherry picking is made in the 
case of selection of Police personnel for police training or practical 
training despite the fact they have completed their required period to 
be eligible for such trainings, which amounts to denying them of 
timely promotion for the next scale; hence, we direct that in future, 
competent authority shall ensure that the Police personnel who have 
completed their required period to be eligible for trainings shall be 
forthwith sent for the training; and in case such police officials are 
bypassed for such trainings on account of default by the department, 
or to extend a favor to the junior, or negligence by the authority 
concerned, their inter-se seniority and the accompanying financial 
entitlements shall not be effected on account of their late joining or 
completion of training.   
76. 
For the reason stated hereinabove, we allow all these appeals 
and set aside the judgment of the learned Sindh Service Tribunal. It is 
expected from the Sindh Government and the Inspector General of 
Police, Sindh that the directives contained in this judgment shall be 
implemented in its letter and spirit without any undue delay and the 
seniority list of all the Police personnel belonging to any of the 
establishment created in terms of Rule 1.4 of the Police Rules, 1934 
shall be prepared within the time stipulated in the judgment.  
 
43
77. 
Copies of this judgment be sent through fax and otherwise to 
the Sindh Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Sindh, Inspector General 
of Police, Sindh and Advocate General, Sindh, for their information 
and compliance. 
 
 CHIEF JUSTICE  
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
Islamabad, the  
____________________ 
Approved for reporting 
 
