P L D 1966 W (PLP)
GHULAM QADIR‑Petitioner Versus HAJI MITHAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | GHULAM QADIR‑Petitioner Versus HAJI MITHAN‑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) (GHULAM QADIR‑Petitioner Versus HAJI MITHAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner.
- Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Candidate with unblemished record‑Preferred to one once involved in murder case.
Judgment & Decree
Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner. Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti for Respondent. This is a second appeal filed against an order dated the 17th of June 1965, passed by Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby, the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that, when the question of appointing a permanent Lambardar came up for consideration, three candidates including the parties came forward. The Collector, after examining the merits of each applicant, appointed the appellant as Lambardar. The respondent went in appeal to the Commissioner who accepted it. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He says that Bharas are Jats. There is nothing on record to substantiate this contention. The learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to para. 7 of the order of the learned Commissioner where the appellant has been described as Ghulam Qadir Jat. This itself is not sufficient to prove that Bharas are Jats. The position, however, remains that the appellant belongs to a minority community. It is true that the appellant has been working as a temporary Lambardar for several years, but he was involved in a murder case. It is also true that he was not challaned, but, if a man with an unblemished record is available, there is not justification for appointing a man who has once been involved in a murder case. In these circumstances, the learned Commissioner was justified in holding that the respondent was wrongly ignored by the learned Collector. I see no justification for any interference. The second appeal fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M.A. Appeal dismissed.