Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS Respondent: EJAZ AZIZ
P L D 1966 W
P L D 1966 W.P.(Rev.)112
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑Petitioner
versus
EJAZ AZIZ‑Respondent
Revision No. 434 of 1964‑65, decided on 14th December 1965
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Vacancy caused on dismissal of Lambardar‑Hereditary claim of candidate one of the factors to be taken into consideration.
(b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Vacancy caused on dismissal of Lambardar‑Fact that candidate worked as temporary Lambardar does not constitute any right.
(c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Community and not caste or sub‑caste to be taken into consideration.
(d) Practice‑Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner, neither perverse nor unreasonable‑Not interfered with.
Ch. Sanaullah Bajwa for Petitioner. Muhammad Hussain and Sh. Abdul Hafeez for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 11th of August 1964, passed by, the Commissioner, Multan Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
The facts of the case are that Mansoor Khan, Lambardar, of Chak No. 144/9‑L, Tehsil Montgomery, was dismissed and the question of filling up vacancy came up for consideration. Fifteen candidates including the parties applied for the post. Ultimately, the Collector selected the respondent. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner; but it was dismissed. Hence this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner had a hereditary claim and had worked as temporary lambardar. The first is only one of the factors to be taken up into consideration and the second does not constitute any right. It is admitted that so far as literacy is concerned, the respondent is more educated.
The petitioner belongs to the Dogar community, but the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that Dogar is a sub‑caste of Rajputs. In such cases we take into consideration the community and not the caste or the sub‑caste.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the fact that the respondent is an absentee. He has referred me to P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 32 in this connection but in this case there is concurrent finding of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner and before interference in revision would be justified, it should beheld that the orders already passed are either perverse or unreasonable. The mere fact, that another view was possible on the facts before these two officers, would not justify interference in revision. Having considered all the aspects of the case, I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The Revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.