livelawpk.com - The Police Order, 2002, and Police Rules, 1934, ---

The Police Order, 2002, and Police Rules, 1934, specifically prohibit Direct Recruitment for the Rank of Head Constable and is reserved for promotion only --- Lahore High Court dismissed petition seeking Regularization of Police Head Constable

2 weeks, 5 days
41

Islamabad 03-12-2024: In a recent judgment, the Lahore High Court dismissed a petition filed by an ex-Army personnel, Nisar Ahmad, seeking reinstatement and regularization of his services as a Head Constable in the Punjab Police. The Court ruled that the Petitioner’s appointment did not comply with the prescribed rules and policies, particularly the Police Order, 2002, and the Police Rules, 1934.

Nisar Ahmad, recruited as a Head Constable on a contract basis in 2006, had his services terminated in 2014. His contract had been extended multiple times until then. He argued that his termination was discriminatory as other similarly placed personnel, recruited under similar conditions, had been regularized. The petitioner relied on the Punjab Government’s 2013 policy for regularization of contract employees, claiming his case should have been considered under its provisions however Mr. Justice Shujaat Ali Khan dismissed the petition.

The Police Order, 2002, and Police Rules, 1934, specifically prohibit direct recruitment for the rank of Head Constable. This position is reserved for promotions from within the ranks of Constables.

The 2013 regularization policy required appointments to comply with the Contract Policy, 2004, and other eligibility criteria. The Scrutiny Committee determined that the petitioner’s recruitment did not meet these requirements.

The Court rejected claims of discrimination, noting that the petitioner’s case was distinct from others who were regularized. Those individuals were recruited under different circumstances and for different ranks.

The Court reiterated that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, can only be exercised when a clear legal right is established. In this case, the petitioner failed to demonstrate such a right.

The Court dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner’s appointment did not create a vested right to regularization. The Court concluded that neither the Police Rules nor the regularization policy supported the petitioner’s claim for reinstatement.