P L D 1966 W (PLP)

This is a second appeal filed against an order dated the 6th of April 1965, passed by Commissioner, Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 against respondent No. 2 was accepted but the appeal filed by the petitioner against respondent No. 2 was rejected. The facts of the case are that there are two pattis in this village. In one patti, one Pir Muhammad Khan, a Jat, was already working as a Lambardar. In the second patti, there was a non‑Muslim Lambardar and, after migration, Muhammad Sharif respondent No. 1 was appointed as a temporary Lambardar from 1951 onwards. When the question of filling up this vacancy permanently came up for consideration, five candidates including the parties applied for the vacancy. After considering the claims of all, the Collector appointed Ghulam Muhammad; Muhammad Sharif respondent No. 1 and Noor Muhammad petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, who passed the orders mentioned above. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The appointment has been made under rule 15 and so far as hereditary considerations and the extent of property are concerned, respondent No. 1 has a greater claim. As regards services and personal influence, they more or less balance each other, but, as regards strength of community, the petitioner belongs to the majority community of Arains while Jats to whom the respondent No. 1 belongs area minority in this patti. Another very important consideration to be kept in view is that the Lambardar in the other patti is already a Jat. The learned counsel for the appellant ‑has referred me to the following rulings: (1) P L D 1960 W. P. (Rev.) 77. (2) P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 72. (3) P L D 1961 W. P. (Rev.)

106. The principles laid down in these rulings are fully applicable to the present case. In this case, the respondent who is a Jat cannot claim to be appointed as a Lambardar when the Lambardar in the other patti is already a Jat and the Jats are in a minority in this patti. The claim of the appellant is further re‑inforced by the fact that he belongs to the majority community so far as this patti is concerned. The learned `counsel for the respondent No. 1 has stated that the lambardar in the other patti teas died. There is nothing on the record to substantiate this assertion. Moreover, this is not a consideration which would decide the issue whether the learned Commissioner was justified in preferring respondent No. 1 or not, because admittedly, at that time, the other Jat Lambardar in the patti was alive. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has pointed out that a number of persons put in applications in favour of respondent No.

1. Appointments of Lambardars are made on administrative grounds and are not to be decided by the wishes of the inhabitants of the village. Another point urged by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is that Muhammad Sharif has been working as a temporary Lambardar. That in itself does not constitute any right. In these circumstances, the choice of the learned Commissioner cannot be endorsed. I, therefore, accept the second appeal and set aside the orders passed by the learned Commissioner. In view of the fact that Ghulam Muhammad has not come up in appeal, I direct that Noor Muhammad shall be appointed as a Lambardar. K. M. A. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.