Instant Constitutional petition challenged order dated 20.2.2006 passed by the Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore, to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby DO(R), Pakpattan Sharif, was directed to initiate proceedings for appointment of headman (Lumberdar) of Chak No, 57/EB Arifwala, District-Pakpattan Sharif.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that on death of Mehdi Khan Lumberdar of the above referred Chak, Deputy Commissioner concerned invited applications for filling the vacancy and in response thereto six candidates filed their respective applications. D.C./District Collector vide his order dated 20.2.2001 appointed the petitioner as headman on the ground that he owned 33-Kanals of agricultural land, held degree of B.Sc. Engineering, was quite physically healthy with the age of 46 years and was energetic enough to perform the duties of the office but he subsequently on 19.3.2001 reviewed his earlier order on review petition filed by one Ikram Ullah Khan.
3. Petitioner aggrieved of order of review, whereby first appointment was withdrawn, filed an appeal before the then Commissioner (EDO(R)) where the vacancy was ordered to be filled after inviting fresh applications. Order in appeal was maintained by the Board of Revenue and consequently instant petition.
4. I have heard the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Petitioner undisputedly, had been an Assistant Director in the Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development Department Punjab, Lahore, wherefrom he was removed with the charge of nepotism and tampering with official record. The order of removal of the petitioner from service remained intact up to the Honourable Supreme Court, whereform his CPLA No, 849-L/1994 was dismissed on 6.12.1995. Respondent No, 1 has remarked in the impugned order that petitioner is defaulter of Rs, 65,178/- of Agricultural Development Bank, Mianchannu and his credentials alongwith Ikram Ullah Khan and Nasrullah Khan, the opposing candidates were required to be determined in an open assembly of the village. The post in question was declared to be open/vacant, for fresh appointment after inviting applications from residents of the Chak and the writ petitioner was correctly debarred from holding the office of headman of the Chak in question.
5. Under law, appointment of a headman is exclusive discretion of revenue authorities and unless the same is exercised arbitrarily or fancifully, there is no scope for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court because it is not a Court of facts. While forming this view, I have to my credit judgments in the cases of Muhammad Younis vs. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue (1988 SCM R 447), Muhammad Ramzan vs. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue and others (1989 SCM R 614), Ghulam Ahmad vs. Member, Board of Revenue and 2 others (PLD 1989 SC 344) and Haji Ahmad Yar vs. Allah Ditta and another (PLD 1989 SC 373).
6. Besides the reasons noted above, scan of record and impugned order revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest without committing any error of law. Even otherwise, just/lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction cannot be substituted on this petition, which being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine.