P L D 1966 W (PLP)

M. Zahur‑ul‑Haq for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 24th of August 1964, passed by the Commissioner, Peshawar Division, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner, Mardan, selected the petitioner as a Kanungo on 8‑1,‑1964. Abdur Rehman respondent and one Mir Haider went in appeal to the Commissioner who accepted the appeal of Abdur Rehman but rejected that of Mir Haider. Gul Badshah has come up in revision before me. At the request of the parties, they were allowed to be represented by their counsel. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The only question for determination in the case is whether the orders passed by the Commissioner under rule 6 are final or whether a revision is competent under rule 17 of the N.‑W. F. P. Kanungo Service Rules, 1936. Rule 17 refers tot Appendix B' and relates to penalties imposed under rule 16 or to penalties increased under rule

20. The word `appeal' mentioned in rule 17 does not, therefore, refer to an appeal decided under rule

6. The learned counsel for Gul Badshah has pointed out that acceptance of an appeal under rule 6 amounts to imposition of penalty. I am afraid. I cannot accept this contention, Penalties are imposed as a result of charges brought against or enquiries held against a person. Rule 6 provides a penalty for redressing the grievance of a person who has not been selected as ale Kanungo candidate. Acceptance of appeal of a person in such cases would not, amount to a penalty for the other person. The learned counsel for Gul Badshah has also referred me to West Pakistan Kanungo Service (Northern Zone) Rules of 1964 and has drawn my particular attention to rule 14 thereof under these Rules, there is no mention as to what is the remedy of a Patwari who has not been selected as a Kanungo. Rule 11, however, makes provisions for those matters which have not been specified in those rules. In all such matters, the rule previously applicable to the parties, namely, the N.‑W. F. P. Kanungo Service Rules of 1936 shall, therefore, apply. In the end, the learned counsel for Gul Badshah has suggested that this revision should be treated as representation under rule 14 of the West Pakistan Kanungo Service (Northern Zone) Rules of 1964. In the first instance it is a revision purported to have been made under the old rules and, in the second, even rule 14 does not make a provision for making any representation to the Governor of West Pakistan. It only lays down that. contingencies, the Governor can make appropriate order the constitutional or legal rights of persons whenever, in the application of these rules, the terms and conditions previously guaranteed to a person are likely to be adversely affected. The present case is not covered by the provision of rule 14 of the new rules. . In these circumstances, it is clear that no revision is competent against the orders passed by the Commissioner under rule 6 of the N.‑W. F. P. Kanungo Service Rules of 1936. The application preferred by Gul Badshah is, therefore, dismissed. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.