P L D 1966 W (PLP)

The facts of the case are that, on the 28th of September 1959, the Collector appointed Saeed Ahmad and Din Muhammad as permanent Lambardars on probation of one year. No appeal or revision was filed against these appointment orders nor were any orders passed after the expiry of one year. Subsequently, Saeed Ahmad applied for the creation of two paths in the village. This request was granted. One pant was assigned to Saeed Ahmad and the other to Din Muhammad Lambardar. On 7‑2‑1964, Barkat Ali petitioner applied for the creation of a third post of Lambardar. No orders have been passed on this application so far. On the 27th of March 1964, Saeed Ahmad applied for his appointment on a permanent basis. On the 7th of April 1964, Barkat Ali put in an application making serious allegations against Saeed Ahmad. Necessary enquiries were made and the allegations were found baseless. On the 25th of May 1964, the Collector passed orders appointing Saeed Ahmad and Din Muhammad Lambardars on a permanent basis. Barkat Ali went in appeal to the Commissioner against the appointment of Saeed Ahmed and Din Muhammad. The appeal was partly accepted and the case was remanded. Barkat Ali has come up in revision and Saeed Ahmad has preferred an appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There has been some confusion on account of the fact that, under the original appointment orders dated 28‑9‑1959, a period of probation had been fixed. The learned counsel for Barkat Al petitioner has contended that before final orders were passed regarding the period of probation, Barkat Ali could apply for the appointment of Lambardar. The appointments were made on 28‑9‑1959 and the learned Collector had to see after the expiry of one year whether there was any necessity to modify the original orders of appointment or to allow the two Lambardars Saeed Ahmad and Din Muhammad to continue. This was purely a matter between the Lambardars and the administration. No other candidate could come forward for the appointment as a Lambardar, because no vacancy had occurred. It would have been a different matter, if, on the expiry of the period of probation, one of the Lambardars was dismissed and a vacancy had arisen. The learned counsel for the petitioner Barkat Ali has referred me to P L D 1962 Ph. (Rev.)

19. This ruling is not at all applicable in this case, because therein a candidate had put in an application before the Collector who passed orders of appoint ment. It is true that the words used in the ruling are "that an application can be made to the Collector who is the deciding authority in Lambardari cases at any time before he finally makes the appointment" but it does not mean that an application can be made during the probationary period of Lambardar or at the time when the condition about probation is being dispensed with. The Collector finally appointed Saeed Ahmad and Din Muhammad on the 28th of September 1959. The mere fact that he attached a condition of probation does not mean that the appointments were not finally made. No appeal or revision was filed against the orders passed on 28‑9‑59 and those orders cannot be re‑opened merely on the ground that certain considerations were not taken into account, at the time when the orders were passed. Barkat Ali did make allegations against Saeed Ahmad with the apparent object of dissuading the Collector from dispensing with the condition of probation. The Collector, after due enquiries, did not find any truth in these allegations and, therefore, removed the condition of probation. Dismissal of that application was purely an administrative matter and the rules do not allow, any revision or appeal to be filed against such orders. At any rate, Barkat Ali did approach the learned Commissioner but he appears to have been influenced by the consideration that certain facts were not taken into account when the original orders were passed on 28‑9‑1959. He, therefore, interfered after the expiry of about five and a half' years. The orders appointing Saeed Ahmad and Din Muhammad on a period of probation had become final. They could be modified or reversed only if Saeed Ahmad and Din Muhammad did not prove worthy of the appointments as Lambardars or omitted any such act as would justify or necessitate their removal during the period of probation or after the expiry of that period or before the Collector finally removed the condition of probation. Barkat Ali could only apply if a vacancy had arisen on account of removal of either Saeed Ahmad or Din Muhammad. As no such contingency happened, he could not claim to be considered for the appointment of a Lambardar in this village. So far as .his application for the creation of a third Lambardari is concerned, the matter is under consideration. So far as this aspect is concerned and no final orders have yet been passed. The decision of that application would take its due course. The learned counsel of Barkat Ali has laid stress on the fact that two pattis were created after the appointment orders passed on the 28th of September 1959. He is under the impression that the pattis were created and then the Lambardars were appointed. In this case, the position was just the reverse. Two Lambardars had been appointed. No sphere of administrative activity had been defined and, therefore, one of the Lambardars, Saeed Ahmad, applied for the creation of the two pattis, and the Collector created patties in order to define the sphere of the activities of the two Lambardars. It is, therefore, clear that pattis were created for these two Lambardars and the position is not that be Lambardars were appointed after the creation of pattis. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Commissioner was not justified in interfering. I, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the learned Commissioner and direct that the orders of appointment of Saeed Ahmad and Din Muhammad as Lambardars on a permanent basis shall stand. As a consequence, Saeed Ahmad's appeal succeeds and the revision filed by Barkat Ali fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Case decided.