P L D 1964 W (PLP)
DR. ZAFAR ALI‑Appellant Versus S. ABDUL QADIR SHAH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | DR. ZAFAR ALI‑Appellant Versus S. ABDUL QADIR SHAH‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Lambardar, (b) Lambardar |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Lambardar, (b) 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) (DR. ZAFAR ALI‑Appellant Versus S. ABDUL QADIR SHAH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑Appointment of Government servant as not desirable.
‑Appointment‑Absentee not to be appointed unless there is outstanding justification.
Judgment & Decree
‑Appointment of Government servant as not desirable. (b) Lambardar
‑Appointment‑Absentee not to be appointed unless there is outstanding justification. Allah Ditta v. Fayyaz Ali P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 32 ref. This second Lambardari appeal has been preferred by Dr. Zafar Ali whose appointment as Lambardar of village Larr, District Multan, was upset by the Commissioner. The main reason which prompted the learned Commissioner to set aside the decision of the Collector was that the appellant Dr. Zafar Ali was a Government employee serving as District Health Officer (Now Assistant Director of Health) and thus would not be of much use to the administration. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Dr. Zafar Ali's position and status is such as would be conducive to a better and more efficient administration. He has also referred me to an earlier decision Allah Ditta v. Fayyaz Ali (P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 32) in which I had held that if an absentee is a person of out v standing ability and merits his appointment would be justified, on the ground that it would be in the interest of good administration. In the present case I am inclined to agree with the learned Commissioner that the appellant cannot be placed in the same category as the respondent in Allah Ditta v. Fayyaz Ali and cannot be given that consideration. Another point which has been taken up before me is that the appellant belongs to Qureshi‑Hashmi tribe and if the appointment of Abdul Qadir Shah who is a Syed Gilani is not set aside the former tribe would not be represented in village administration. It may be mentioned that neither of these two tribes is a dominant tribe in the estate and it would not therefore be a serious matter whether a representative of one or the other is a Lambardar or not. In my opinion the decision that has been arrived at by the learned Commissioner is correct and is maintained. As a result the appeal stands rejected. K. M. A. Appeal rejected.