2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.

On 29-5-2006, a Writ Petition bearing No.3945 of 2004/BWP (Muhammad Saeed v. District Coordination Officer, Bahawalpur and another) was decided by me, which was dismissed. Dissatisfied from that aforementioned judgment, Muhammad aced has again approached this Court through the instant review petition.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that the judgment/order dated 29-5-2006, referred to above, needs review on the following grounds: (i) An application bearing C.M. No.30 of 2005 was filed in the writ petition for impleadment of Ombudsman as party to the writ petition but that application was not decided; (ii) On 23-7-2002, Government of Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department had issued instructions to the District Coordination Officer, Bahawalpur, which had the force of law but it was not referred to and considered; (iii) Board of Revenue, Punjab had requested the Deputy Secretary (Regulations) S&GAD, Government of Punjab through letter, dated 5-1-2004 with regard to the case of absorption of Muhammad Saeed, Naib Tehsildar, and Regulation Wing of Services and General Administration Department, Government of the Punjab had opined that absorption of Mr. Muhammad Saeed against the vacant post was legal and lawful. This letter, dated 5-1-2004 was not considered while passing the impugned judgment. (iv) The judgment of learned Ombudsman was ex parte and without jurisdiction as the applicant was neither issued notice nor granted any opportunity of hearing and learned Ombudsman had also no jurisdiction to pass any order with regard to service matters of Government servants. So, the impugned judgment may be reviewed and set aside, and writ petition accepted.

3. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel, my conclusions are:-- (a) At the time of arguments of the main writ petition, C.M. No.30 of 2005 was neither referred nor its prayer was pressed, so it was not decided. Moreover, the decision of this C.M. in either way had no impact upon the impugned judgment because the letter of Provincial Ombudsman was only an advice to the Board of Revenue, which Board of Revenue was not bound to follow. The orders were passed by the Board of Revenue and the District Coordination Officer, and not the learned Ombudsman, on the basis of which Muhammad Saeed, applicant was repatriated. Therefore, the impleadment of Provincial Ombudsman in the array of respondents could not have any repercussion upon the judgment delivered by me on 29-5-2006. (b) It is correct that instructions of Department which are applicable to a large majority of employees and lay down some principles/rules, policy matters and are issued from the competent authority of the Department have got on some occasions the force of law. But it should be kept in view that each and all instructions have got no such force, particularly when any provision of law, rule, policy or instruction requires interpretation from a Court of law, in such an event the interpretation of the Court of law has got superseding effect upon the instructions of the Department. The letter, dated 23-7-2002 was referred to in my judgment. The aforementioned letter, dated 23-7-2002 could not be considered to confer any power upon the District Coordination Officer, if he was not granted or conferred power by any law of Local Government or the Service Rules of Naib Tehsildari Posts. The service of Naib Tehsildar was not a District Government Service but was governed by the rules of Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue Administration Posts) Rules, 1990. In para. No.5 of my judgment, these rules were discussed and it was clearly held that the procedure, method and manner for recruitment of Naib Tehsildar as provided by the aforesaid rules were to apply and no one could be allowed to intrude into aforesaid service through any backdoor manner and method through issuance of letters and instructions, unless these rules were varied, amended/altered or annulled. (c) As regards the advice from Regulation Wing, S&GAD of the Government of Punjab, it was only an advice and not a law, and could not act as amending the rules framed under a statute. (d) Invalidity of judgment of Ombudsman had no effect upon the order of Board of Revenue or the District Coordination Officer because the order of repatriation was passed when the revivification of Housing and Physical Planning Department had occurred. The order of Provincial Ombudsman, if it is considered to have been passed without jurisdiction and is a nullity in the eye of law, even then the impugned judgment cannot be reviewed and set aside as this was not a determinative factor of my judgment. (e) At this stage, I would like to add that it is not the right of government servant to claim to remain posted in a particular department of his own choice unless specifically contracted for a particular department and post. It is the parent Department where the applicant had by his own will and choice joined to order repatriation of the petitioner to any time to his own department or to send him to any other department for a limited time and period. So, in these circumstances, petitioner cannot desist from being repatriated to his parent department because the adjustment to the Revenue Department of Naib Tehsildari Service was due to unavoidable circumstances as the parent department was going to lose its existence. But when the department itself had resucitated, the petitioner could not refuse to be posted with its own Department. (f) It is settled law that the scope of review is narrow and limited. It cannot be stretched on the basis of some omission to consider facts or not making those facts the part of judgment while deciding the facts judgments of superior Courts are delivered not on all points and facts but on the material points and aspects, which in the mind of Judge are determinative factors for the just decision of a case. Exclusion from discussion in fact should be presumed to have given an impression that those points of law and facts were not considered material and relevant for the disposal of the lis and were not required any detailed discussion. It may be kept in view that lengthy and irrelevant discussions in a judgment are not to serve the case and cause of speedy administration of justice. It is to delay the adjudication of cases. Therefore, I do not consider any such illegality, irregularity or defect having occurred while delivering the impugned judgment so as to attract the exercise of review power/jurisdiction. Accordingly, the instant review application is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-39/L Review application dismissed.