2008 PLP 780 (CLC)

KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, J.

Grievance voiced by the petitioner in this constitutional petition is that respondent No.5 is working as Assistant Tehsil Officer (A.T.O.) infrastructure against the ' post of Civil Engineer. The qualification for the post held by respondent No.5 is B.Sc. Engineering in Civil Technology and, as such, he is not eligible to hold the said post, because he is only matriculate along with three years Diploma in Electrical, whereas respondent No.6 is also not eligible to be posted as Sub-Engineer as he is diploma-holder in mechanical technology, which is not requisite qualification for the post held by the respondent No.6, and prayed that appointment of respondents Nos.5 and 6 may kindly be declared mala fide, without lawful authority and against the rules.

2. The comments called for from respondents Nos.3 and 4 have been received.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.6 is not qualified for the post of Sub-Engineer, Civil, and respondent No.5 is also not qualified to be posted against the post of A.T.O. He has referred to the rules of Punjab Local Government District Service (Tehsil Town Municipal Administration Cadre) Rules, 2005 schedule table with regard to the qualification of the Engineer and Sub-Engineer at serial Nos.11 and 12 and qualification for the post of Sub-Engineer is Matric and Diploma in Civil Engineering from recognized institution for the post of Tehsil Officer (T.O.) is degree in Civil Engineering from recognized University.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the rules which are called Punjab Local Government Service (Tehsil Town Municipal Administration Cadre) Rules 2005, which were framed on 30-7-2005 to contend that the qualification of Sub-Engineer as per these rules is Matric and Diploma in Civil Engineering and according to him respondent No.6 does not hold the requisite qualification as per these rules.

5. Learned A.A-G. states that these rules framed on 30th July, 2005 and its retrospective effect is for the subsequent appointments after this date and not for the prior appointments. Since respondent No.5 was appointed as Sub-Engineer in the year 1971 and respondent No.6 was inducted as A.T.O. in 1984, therefore, rules applicable to them are the Punjab Local Government Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1983. These rules are applicable to the already retired and existing personnel of Local Councils Service constituted under Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and as per these rules qualification of Sub-Engineer is Matric or equivalent qualification from recognized University or Secondary Board Diploma in Engineering obtained after three years course from the institute recognized by the Government for the purpose of these rules. In para 11 of the petition, it is mentioned that the qualification for the appointment of T.O. is degree in Civil Engineering from recognized University but respondent No.5 is A.T.O. and not T.O., therefore he has requisite qualification of A.T.O. by having degree recognized by Higher Education Commission.

6. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. All the objections raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been rebutted by respondent No.3 in his report and parawise comments, wherein he has stated that the respondents are fully qualified to be posted at their place of appointment. As far as objection of the petitioner regarding their ineligibility is concerned, the same has no basis as the rules referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the instant case. Only rules framed under Punjab Local Councils Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1983 .are applicable. The respondent are fully covered under these rules and fulfill the requisite qualification as the requirement of job. The petitioner has since relied on the rules framed on 30th July, 2005, therefore, these rules are not applicable to the appointment of the respondents.

7. The petitioner, who is a private contractor working with respondent department on contract basis, is therefore, not an aggrieved person to file this constitutional petition and has also no locus standi to agitate this matter in the writ petition, because he is not covered by the definition of an "aggrieved person". Definition of "aggrieved person" is very clear from the case of Toyota Hiace City Wagon owners Association, Multan v. Farrukh Ahmad, Secretary, Road Transport Authority, Multan and others PLD 1998 Lah. 376 wherein it has been held that "aggrieved person" would be the one who had been denied legal right by someone who had legal duty to perform relating to that right". As per definition in Chamber 21st Century Dictionary that an "aggrieved person" is the one who suffer because of someone else's illegal behaviour, Keeping in view the definition given above, the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of "aggrieved person" and has therefore no locus standi to file this petition. The rules relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. These rules were framed on 30th July, 2005 and were applicable only on the subsequent appointments and not to the earlier appointments. Since respondent No.6 was appointed as Sub-Engineer in the year 1971 and respondent No.5 was inducted as A.T.O. in 1984, therefore, rules applicable to them are the Punjab Local Government Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983. Moreover, the petitioner has no where mentioned in his petition that any of his right is infringed as he is not a regular employee of the Local Government and Community development Government of the Punjab.

8. Another aspect of the matter is that since the petitioner is a contractor of the department where respondents Nos.5 and 6 are serving, the element of mala fide is also there on the part of the petitioner because respondents Nos.5 and 6 are the concerned persons who have to verify the work of the petitioner as such on the point of mala fide on the part of the petitioner, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. For what has been discussed above, the present petition is devoid of any merits, hence the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.????????? H.B.T./M-19/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.