Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KHAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER VS Respondent: NOOR KHAN
P L D 1966 W
P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 169
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
KHAN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners
versus
NOOR KHAN‑Respondent
Revisions Nos. 960 and 961 of 1964‑65, decided on 13th January 1966.
(a) Lambardar ‑ Appointment‑A, a school teacher, appointed on condition that he would resign from service within three months from date of order of Collector‑Order of Collector not complied with‑A submitting explanation that he was awaiting result of appeal and revision‑Explanation reasonable.
(b) Practice‑Concurrent findings of fact by Collector arid Commissioner‑Not interfered with.
Asadullah Siddiqui for Petitioner Malik Talib Hussain for Respondent.
ORDER
This order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑----
(1) Khan Muhammad v. Noor Khan (Revision No. 960). (2) Abdul Aziz v. Noor Khan (Revision No. 961).
These two revisions have been filed against orders dated the 24th of March 1965, passed by Commissioner, Sargodha Division, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners were rejected.
The facts of the case are that, on the death of the temporary Lambardar, Ahmed Khan, the post fell vacant. Seven candidates including the, parties applied for the post. The Collector considered the merits of the contestants and appointed Noor Khan as Lambardar. The petitioner went in appeal before the Commissioner, but the appeals were dismissed. Hence these two revisions.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. On behalf of Khan Muhammad, it has been contended that he should have been preferred, because he belongs to the Jat Community, who own the greatest area and that he had acquired land by the time the Collector passed the orders. These considerations are only two of the factors which are to be kept in view while making such appointments. Noor Khan was the brother of the deceased Lambardar, a teacher in the Primary School and was recommended by local officers. The Collector, therefore, preferred him.
On behalf of Abdul Aziz Khan, it has been alleged that his claims are not superior to Khan Muhammad but he should be considered if Khan Muhammad's request is rejected. Abdul Aziz is not educated. It is true that he belongs to the majority community, but the learned Collector considered all aspects and then ignored him.
The main defect from which the respondent suffered was absence from the village. For this, the Collector laid down the condition that he should resign within three months from the date of orders. He has not done so and the explanation put forward is that the petitioners filed appeals and now they have come in revision. He was awaiting the result of the appeals and e revisions. This does not appear to be an unreasonable explanation.
In these circumstances, I see no justification for interfering with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. Both the revisions fail and are rejected hereby.
It is, however, directed that the respondent should resign within one month of the date of this order otherwise he shall stand dismissed.
K. M, A. Revision petitions dismissed.