P L D 2007 Lahore 57 (PLP)

SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.

Appointment of respondent No.2, as Ombudsman Punjab, made through Notification dated 16-5-2004 is sought to be assailed primarily on the ground that only a Judge of the High Court or a person qualified to be the Judge of the High Court could be appointed notwithstanding the amendment made in S.3 of the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997 (Act X 1997).

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that ever since the enactment of Act X of 1997 all those who held the Office of Ombudsman in the Province of Punjab were former Judges of superior Courts who were appointed keeping in view the nature of duties and functions of the said Office. It is contended that even the amendment brought in S.3 of the Punjab Office of the Ombudsman Act, 1997 (Act X 1997) did not empower the Government to appoint respondent No.2, as according to the learned counsel expression "or any-other person" is to be read ejusdem generis and not in isolation. It is contended that since respondent No.2, had not been a Judge of High Court nor was he qualified to be a Judge of High Court, his appointment was unlawful and even the amendment in section 3(2) of Act X of 1997 was ultra vires the Constitution.

3. The learned Law Officer and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently urge for upholding the appointment of respondent No.2. It is contended that in view of the amendment in subsection (2) of section 3 of Act X of 1997, any person of known integrity could be appointed as Ombudsman. It is contended that respondent No.2, is a person of known and impeccable integrity who is a former civil servant having vast experience, whose appointment was made in accordance with law through a valid Notification issued by the Governor of Punjab. It is contended that amendment of S.3(2) through Act III of 2003 was competently made by the Provincial Assembly which was fully in accord with the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

4. Through the Punjab Office of Ombudsman Act, 1997 (Act X of 1997) the Office of Ombudsman was introduced in the Province of Punjab. Appointment to such Office as envisaged by law is to be made by the Government of the Punjab, whose term of Office is three years. Subsection (2) of S.3 lays down the qualifications for such an appointment. As originally enacted it was "An Ombudsman shall be a person who is , or has been or is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court and is person of known integrity" (Section 3 (2) of the Act 1997). The appointments previously made were inconsonance with the said provision of law. Mr. Justice (R) Munir Ahmad Khan, Mr. Justice (R.) Manzoor Hussain Sial and Mr. Justice (R.) Sajjad Ahmad Sipra held the said Office accordingly. The last incumbent held that Office till 11-2-2004. Subsection (2) of S.3 of Act X 1997 was amended through Punjab Act III of 2003 and after receiving assent of the Governor of Punjab on 8-2-2003 was notified on 10-2-2003. The amended provisions of S.3 (2) is as follows:-- ??????????? "An Ombudsman shall be a person who is, or has been or is qualified to be a ??? Judge of the High Court or any other person of known integrity." Undoubtedly the scope and ambit of S.3 (2) of the Act was enlarged through the amendment so as to enable the Government to appoint Ombudsman other than a Judge of the Superior Court. Such an intention is clearly discernible from the phraseology "or any other person of known integrity". The competency of Provincial Legislature to amend a law enacted by it cannot be disputed nor it has been shown how the amendment so made is ultra vires any of the provisions of the Constitution. Functions to be performed by the holder of such Office are not purely and exclusively of judicial nature. The contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2, that a person of integrity having served as civil servant by virtue of his administrative experience can also be eminently suitable for the Office, is not without significance. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the amended provision should be construed in the manner that only a person having judicial knowledge and background should be appointed as Ombudsman, cannot be countenanced inasmuch as the intention of the legislature is quite obvious and clear by the words employed by it "or any other person". Any restricted construction of the amended provisions will not only defeat the intendment of the legislature, it would rather render the phrase "any other person" as meaningless and otiose. It is settled law that each word of the statute is entitled to be given meaning and no part of it is to be treated as redundant. Mere desire that such an Office should be held by a person belonging to judiciary cannot be made a ground for striking down a provision of law validly made by the competent legislature.

5. The principle of ejusdem generis is inaptly being invoked inasmuch as the word "or" in the context has consciously been used by the legislature in a disjunctive sense. The principle attracted to such a situation is as stated at page 826 of Understanding Statutes, Canons of Construction, Second Edition by S. M. Zafar "it is clear that the Courts have power to change and will change `and' to `or' and vice versa, whenever such conversion is required by the context or is necessary to harmonize the provisions of a statute and give effect to all its provisions, or to save it from unconstitutionality, or, in general to effectuate the obvious intention of the legislature." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner thus does not carry weight and is found to be untenable. Once therefore, the amended provisions of S.3 are found free of any taint of invalidity and being intra vires, the appointment of respondent No.2, made through Notification dated 16-5-2004 suffers from no illegality. Suffice it to observe that the integrity of respondent No.2 has not in any way been disputed by the petitioner. In view of the above, the petition is bereft of any merit, which is dismissed accordingly. S.M.B./S-167/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.