2010 PLP 1932 (YLR)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI. J.

Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner seeks cancellation of appointment of respondents Nos. 7 and 8 who are working as Patwari in Tehsil Keror District Layyah.

2. Learned counsel submitted that respondent D.D.O (R), Keror District Layyah issued Appointment Letter Nos. 11, 12 and 15 as Patwaris to respondents Nos.7 and 8 on 16-1-1998 on the basis of this appointment letter respondents Nos. 7 and 8 joined the office of Patwari. Learned counsel further submitted that Deputy Commissioner/District Officer (R) respondent No. 4 directed the respondent No. 5 to cancel the appointments of respondents Nos. 7 and 8 as their appointments have been made during the ban. He further contended that in compliance of order dated 4-2-2008 D.D.O. (Revenue), Keror, respondents No.5 withdrew the appointment order of respondents Nos. 7 and 8 vide order dated 4-2-1998; that respondents No. 7 filed W.P. No. 1019/98 and this writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and also on merits vide order dated 9-12-2002, whereas, W.P. No. 1020/98 was dismissed as withdrawn on 22-12-2003. Learned counsel submitted that he moved an application to respondent No. 6 that respondents Nos. 7 and 8 had committed fraud with the department and they arc working as Patwari, their appointments should be withdrawn. Petitioner also submitted applications to other Revenue Officers. The petitioner also approached the Anti-Corruption Department and to her highups for action against respondents Nos.7 and 8 but all in vain. The petitioner made his best efforts for filing complaints before respondents and before other forums for the removal of the respondents Nos. 7 and 8 from the office of Patwari. As a last resort, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. At the very outset, this Court put a question to the petitioner how he is aggrieved of the appointments made in 1998 near about 12 years have elapsed and he has filed this writ petition at such a belated stage. The petitioner replied that the petitioner has filed the application before the authorities who are impleaded as respondents but no body gives attention to the request of the petitioner but he could not answer how he is aggrieved from the appointments of respondents Nos.7 and

8. In my opinion, it appears that petitioner has some personal vendetta against respondents Nos. 7 and 8 as he is continuously making complaints against respondents Nos.7 and

8. This Court cannot assume the role of Investigating Officer as much factual controversy is involved and it needs probe and investigation about the allegation levelled against respondents Nos.7 and

8. For some personal vendetta discretionary powers in the constitutional petition cannot be exercised.

4. In the light of above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./A-104/L Petition dismissed.