P L D (PLP)

Shaikh Abdul Majid Asghar for Respondent. This is an appeal filed against an order dated the 31st of May 1965, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that, when the question of appointing a temporary Lambardar in this chak came up for consideration, five candidates including the parties applied for the post. After considering the claims of all concerned, the Collector appointed Fazal Hussain. Jan Muhammad went in appeal to the Commissioner, who accepted it. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main question for consideration is whether the learned Commissioner was justified in interfering with the orders passed by the learned Collector. I have examined the learned Collector's orders carefully. It, appears that he was mainly influenced by the consideration that Jan Muhammad had only applied for leave preparatory to retirement and could resume service at any time. This presumption was held to be not justified by the learned Commissioner and, in the circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Commissioner. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the leaned Collector remarked that Jan Muhammad had been over‑clever. According to the learned counsel, this was one of the grounds in rejecting the claim of Jan Muhammad. I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention. The remarks mentioned above were made by the learned Collector only to meet the argument that Jan Muhammad had been collecting Government dues for the last three or four years. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that Fazal Hussain's services were greater than those of Jan Muhammad. As things stood before the learned Commissioner, no proof was given for the assertion made by Fazal Hussain that his two real maternal‑uncles had served in the Army. The learned Commissioner was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that Jan Muhammad had rendered greater services. The learned Collector also took into consideration the area which Fazal Hussain was likely to get as a result of inheritance. Fazal Husain's father is still alive and he was one of the contestants for the post. Such a consideration should not influence the decision as regards the comparative merits of the contestants. In these circumstances, the learned Commissioner was justified in interfering with the orders passed by the learned Collector. The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Appeal dismissed.