P L D 1966 W (PLP)
KANWARDI alias QAMAR DIN‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | KANWARDI alias QAMAR DIN‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (KANWARDI alias QAMAR DIN‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Amjad Khan for Petitioner.
- Malik M. D. Farooq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Two posts already given to majority community‑Third post in interest of administration should go to other community.
Judgment & Decree
Lambardar‑Appointment‑Two posts already given to majority community‑Third post in interest of administration should go to other community. Ch. Amjad Khan for Petitioner. Malik M. D. Farooq for Respondent. This is a revision petition filed against an order dated the 6th of August 1965, passed by the Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that a permanent vacancy arose on account of the migration of the non‑Muslim Lambardar. Six persons including the parties contested. The Collector selected the respondent and ignored the Meo candidates as two posts of Lambardars had already gone to this community. The petitioner went in appeal to the Commissioner, but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is conceded that the petitioner belongs to the majority community and the learned counsel has drawn my attention to a number of rulings which say that another Lambardar can be appointed even if a post had already gone to the majority community. These principles are to be taken into consideration at the time of the appointment of the second Lambardar. In this case I find that two posts have already gone to the majority community and both the learned Collector and the Commissioner have, thought it administratively desirable that the third post should go to another community. The learned Commissioner and the learned Collector have both considered the case very carefully and I see no justification for any interference with their concurrent findings. The revision fails and is rejected hereby. K. M. A. Petition rejected.