LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has ruled that it is within the domain of appointing authority to determine who to appoint as provincial police officer (PPO) and it (court) cannot take upon itself function of appointing authority in order to judge the suitability of a candidate for such appointment.

Dismissing a quo-warranto petition against the appointment of Punjab inspector general of police Sardar Ali Khan, Justice Muzamil Akhtar Shabbir observes, “Writ petition in the form of quo-warranto is an extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction and this court is not bound to exercise such jurisdiction in each and every case.”

Nauman Amanat, a lawyer, filed the petition saying the procedure provided in the Police Order 2002 had been violated in the appointment of the respondent as the IGP.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that provincial police officer was defined in Article 2 (1)(xvii) of the Police Order 2002, which provides that PPO was to be head of the police of a general police area of the rank of IGP posted under Article 11 and the respondent (Khan) being of the rank of Addi-IGP was not qualified to hold the same.

Dismisses plea against posting of Punjab IGP

He argued that only an officer of BS-22 could be appointed as PPO whereas the respondent was an officer of the rank of BS-21 and was not authorised to be appointed.

The counsel further argued that the IGP was to be appointed by the government of the province and not by the federal government whereas in the instant case, the respondent had been appointed as PPO by the federal government, therefore, autonomy of the province had been adversely affected.

In adherence to a court’s notice, IGP Khan submitted a reply stating that he had been appointed as PPO in his own pay & scale by the government of Punjab establishment division after approval from the federal cabinet. Where after, he called upon the chief minister and with his permission and approval, assumed the charge of PPO on Sept 8, 2021.

Opposing the petition, an assistant advocate general told the court that the respondent was appointed with the approval and consultation with the provincial government after due deliberations and there was no defect in his appointment.

He said the petitioner placed reliance upon the appointment letter only whereas the process culminating into the same related to internal working of the federal and provincial governments which was not usually disclosed while issuing appointment letter.

He said the stance taken by the petitioner that provincial government was not consulted before making the impugned appointment was without any basis. He said the purpose of recommendation of three names for appointment was that the provincial government may appoint a person of its own choice by selecting anyone of them and where the federal and provincial government in consultation with each other appointed the respondent with consensus the same amounted to substantial compliance of Article 11 of Police Order 2002.

In his 11-page verdict, Justice Shabbir observes that Article 11 of Police Order provides that the PPO is to be appointed from the panel of three police officers recommended by the federal government but the grade of such officers has not been mentioned in the said provision.

The judge notes that none of the provisions of law provide that an officer having BS-22 could only be appointed to the rank of IGP, therefore, objection that the respondent is a BS-21 and not qualified to be appointed is without any substance and cannot be held as a disqualification for appointment to the said post.

The judge also rejects another objection of the petitioner that an officer already holding the rank of IGP could only be appointed as PPO and a person holding post of Addi-IGP cannot be promoted and appointed to the said post during the availability of an officer of the rank of IGP.

The judge maintains that the petitioner has failed to point out that the respondent was not qualified to hold the office of the PPO or that there was no consensus between federal and provincial governments for his appointment.

“Hence, this court is not inclined to hold that the appointment of the respondent was not in accordance with law,” the judge concludes the judgement.

Published in Dawn, April 6th, 2022