P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MIAN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM SARWAR‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MIAN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM SARWAR‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (MIAN MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM SARWAR‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Kamal Mustafa Bokhari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Temporary Lambardar cannot claim as of right to be appointed permanently. P L D 1959 W P (Rev.) 5 ref.: (b) Practice‑Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Practice‑Concurrent finding of fact by Collector and Commissioner‑Not interfered with. Kamal Mustafa Bokhari for Petitioner. Respondent in person. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 3rd of November 1964, passed by the Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the Collector, after considering the claims of seven candidates, appointed the respondent as Lambardar. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has said that the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner have wrongly held that the respondent was more influential and the services rendered by the petitioner as temporary Lambardar had been ignored. In the first instance, this is only a question of opinion as to whether the respondent or the petitioner had rendered more service. In the second, mere satisfactory working as a temporary Lambardar does not constitute any right. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to P L D 1959 W P (Rev.)
5. The principle laid down therein is that a temporary Lambardar may be appointed as a permanent Lambardar. It does not mean that a temporary Lambardar has to be necessarily appointed as a Lambardar. In each case, the merits of the parties have to be considered and this is exactly what was done in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the alleged disqualification of the respondent so far as the residence was concerned. Before the learned Collector, there was no adequate evidence to prove this allegation and that is why it was ignored. 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.