P L D 1964 W (PLP)
FATEH KHAN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FATEH KHAN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Lambardar‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Lambardar‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (FATEH KHAN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftkhar‑ul‑Haq and Feroze Din for Petitioner.
- Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Candidate being in service ignored by Collector‑‑ Appointment of other candidate made‑Unsuccessful candidate resigning from service subsequently‑‑Cannot be appointed in appeal.
Judgment & Decree
P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 3 fol. Inayat Ullah for Appellant. Iftkhar‑ul‑Haq and Feroze Din for Petitioner. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent. This case relates to the appointment of a temporary Lambar dar of Chak No. 32/MB, Thal Colony, District Sargodha. The previous Lambardar who was brother of Fateh Khan appellant had been dismissed for having been involved in a murder case. The respondent Muhammad Iqbal who was employed as a teacher in another village was ignored by the Col lector on the ground of his being an absentee. The Collec tor's choice fell upon Fateh Khan but the learned Com missioner interfered in appeal and appointed Muhammad Iqbal instead as it was stated that by that time he had resigned from his teaching job and had taken up residence in the estate. A second appeal has now been filed by Fateh Khan and a revision by Muhammad Bakhsh, who was also a claiment before the Collector and whose appeal had been dismissed by the learned Commissioner. Two main points have been taken up before me. The first is that at the time of the appointment of Fateh Khan as Lambardar by the Collector Muhammad Iqbal was not residing in the estate. According to Muhammad Iqbal's own case he was then employed as a teacher and could not, therefore, have been able to discharge satisfactorily the duties of a Lambardar, It has been held in Abdul Shakur v. Wali Muhammad (P L D 1963 W. P. (Rev.) 3) by the Full Bench of the Board that improvement in a candidate's status and property qualifications subsequent to appointment by the Collector should be ignored and both these factors have to be taken into consideration at the time that the Collector makes the appointment. Good reasons have been given for this decision and in coming to this decision the previous rulings on the point had been duly considered. Thus the learned Commissioner was not acting in accordance with law in making the appointment of Muhammad Iqbal on the ground that subsequent to decision by the Collector his status had improved that is to say he bad resigned his post as teacher and had taken up his residence in the estate and was thus in a position to discharge satisfactorily the duties of a Lambardar. As regards the case of Muhammad Bakhsh, this petitioner made default before the Collector and it is incorrect to urge that he was represented by a counsel, as the record of the case does not bear out this contention. As a result of the above discussion I would accept the appeal of Fateh Khan and appoint him as temporary Lambardar. The revision petition of Muhammad Bakhsh stands dismissed. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.