PLD1957 W (PLP)
GHULAM QADIR‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | PLD1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in PLD1957 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case PLD1957 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: PLD1957 W (PLP) (GHULAM QADIR‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Siraj‑ud‑Din Ahmad for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Nadir for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment‑Candidate having some distinc tion in comparison to other should not be ignored merely on account of his default in realizing land revenue in his capacity as temporary Lambardar.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
I find that it will be necessary to inter fere in revision in this case, because I have formed the opinion that the Commissioner did not have adequate justification for upsetting the appointment made by the Collector. The petitioner was the Collector's choice and the Commis sioner decided to upset his appointment in the following terms :‑ The respondent worked as a temporary Lambardar and the record shows that he defaulted from time to time. The Naib Tahsildar has reported that in spite of warning, the respondent defaulted and so he should not be appointed. The Tahsildar and the Revenue Assistant made recommendations in similar terms. It is true that the respondent has paid up the arrears but it is important to remember that a person tries to do his best while he works as a temporary Lambardar and especially when his permanent appointment is approaching. It would, thus appear that in this case the best that the respondent could do was that he defaulted on several occasions. A person who has been tried as Lambardar and has failed, should not be tried again by appointing him on a permanent basis when another suitable person is available. A close perusal of the record shows that the Commissioner attached unnecessary importance to the question of the petitioner's default. There was some money due on account of rent of evacuee property and Rehabilitation fees. But even these arrears had been paid into the Treasury before the Collector passed his orders. There is no indication that the petitioner was a persistent defaulter or that the default covered more than one occasion. The petitioner has some distinction in comparison with the respondent. The former was a Zaildar in India before migrating to Pakistan. He is also literate the respondent cannot claim to be able to read and write. In the, above circumstances, I accept this petition for revision and direct that the petitioner should be restored to the Lambardari appointment. K. M. A. Petition accepted,