P L D 1964 W (PLP)

Lambardar‑

Appointment‑Allegations that due proclamation was not made before appointment‑Fresh appointment after procla mation directed by Commissioner‑Order of Commissioner upheld in revision. Sardar Mohammad Khan and Sultan Sikandar for Petitioner. Mahmood Qureshi for Respondent. This case relates to the appointment of a Lambardar of Chak No. 752‑GB, District Lyallpur. The vacancy had occurred due to the migration of non‑Muslims to India, and the Collector appointed Muhammad Aslam as Lambardar as he was the only candidate. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner by Abdul Ghani, respondent and the main point taken up was that no proclamation had been made in the village inviting appli cations for the post, appointment to which had been obtained by Muhammad Aslam in a clandestine manner. The learned Commissioner examined the chaukidar who was supposed to have carried out the proclamation and who stated before the Com missioner that no proclamation was ever made by him. The Commissioner thereupon accepted the appeal and remanded the case for a fresh decision after inviting applications in the proper manner. A revision has now been filed against this order. Two main points have been taken up before me. Firstly, that Abdul Ghani was not a party to the proceedings and he could not, therefore, file an appeal before the learned Commissioner. Secondly that the present proceedings before me constitute a second appeal and I am not competent to go into a question of fact whether due proclamation was made or not as only question of lam, can be agitated in second appeal. As regards the first issue; technically the objection taken seems to be correct. Abdul Ghani was not a party to the proceedings but what remedy is open to a person who feels that in a particular Lambardari case the appointment has not been made in accordance with law, the rules and the existing practice but in a clandestine manner. This person could certainly bring the facts to the notice of the Commissioner who could exercise his revisional jurisdiction under section 16 of the Land Revenue Act and pass such order as he thinks fit. In this particular case there is apparently party faction in the estate and the choukidar at one time bad made one statement and subsequently went back on it; rather asserted that he did not make any statement before the Collector that due proclamation had been made in the estate. A number of people had appeared before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade in support of Muhammad Aslam and had made statements to the effect that he was the only candidate for the post and should, therefore, be appointed. At the same time a large number of people appeared before the learned Commissioner and made an application jointly that the appointment had been made in a clandestine manner without due proclamation and inviting applications. Without going into the technical aspect of the matter I consider that the best solution would be to exercise my revisional jurisdiction under the provisions of section 16 of the Land Revenue Act and direct that the order made by the learned Commissioner should be carried out namely that a proclamation should now be made, fresh applications invited and the appointment made on merits. In effect the present application thus stands rejected, and the order passed by the learned Commissioner is maintained. K. M. A. Petition rejected.