P L D 1962 W (PLP)
ABDULLAH KHAN‑Appellant Versus GHULAM HAIDER‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1962 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmed, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDULLAH KHAN‑Appellant Versus GHULAM HAIDER‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1962 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 1962 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmed, 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 1962 W (PLP) (ABDULLAH KHAN‑Appellant Versus GHULAM HAIDER‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Shafi for Appellant.
- Altaf‑ur‑Rehman for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Lambardar ‑ Appointment ‑ Standard of education of candidates ‑ No real difference between Primary or Middle standards. (b) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Order of Collector neither perverse nor foolish‑Not to be interfered with. Mashir Ali v. Chiragh Khan P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 925 rel. (c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate may apply direct to Collector any time before he finally makes appointment. (d) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Being a member of Lambardar family is merely one of the matters to be taken into consideration at time of appointment.
Judgment & Decree
Mashir Ali v. Chiragh Khan P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 925 rel. (c) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Candidate may apply direct to Collector any time before he finally makes appointment. (d) Lambardar‑Appointment‑Being a member of Lambardar family is merely one of the matters to be taken into consideration at time of appointment. Muhammad Shafi for Appellant. Altaf‑ur‑Rehman for Respondent. The appellant, Abdullah Khan, was appointed by the Collector as Lambardar of Chak No. 14/R. B. District Sheikhupura. The learned Additional Commissioner intervened on appeal in favour of the respondent Ghulam Hyder primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that Abdullah Khan had applied for the post after the Tehsildar and the Revenue Assistant had made their recommendations to the Collector ; and secondly that Ghulam Hyder belonged to a Lambardar family and was read upto the middle standard whereas Abdullah Khan was only primary pass. These grounds neither separately nor together are sufficient to justify interference by the learned Additional Commissioner. Following Mashir Ali v. Chiragh Khan reported in (P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 925) the general practice has been to respect the decision of the Collector in Lambardari cases unless it is perverse of foolish. There is hardly any real difference in the standard of education between a primary or middle pass. Further P L D 1956 W P (Rev.) 47 on which the Additional Commissioner has relied has already been overruled on the ground that an application can be made to the Collector who is the deciding authority in Lambardari cases at any time before he finally makes the appointment. The date or dates fixed by the Tehsildar or Revenue Assistant for inviting applications in Lambardari cases have no legal sanctity. As regards the point of belonging to a Lambardar family ; this is merely one of the matters which has to be taken into consideration when making the appointment. The appellant has worked as a temporary Lambardar satisfactorily is literate, owns area considerably in. excess of the respondent and has been considered `the most suitable person' of all the candidates for the Lambardari by the Collector. I would for the above reasons accept the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that passed by the Collector. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.