' Syed Rashid Ali had filed petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 with his grievance that he being a son of retired Government employee was entitled to appointment as 'Patwari' but he had been ignored in violation of the recruitment policy of the Government of the Punjab. In that he had assailed the appointment of Akhtar Saeed (respondent No,4) and Amanat Ali Zahid (respondent No,5) The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 26-10-2004 by declining to disturb their appointments. None of them i,e, the petitioner or the non-official respondents have assailed the judgment, however, the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Sheikhupura has filed this Intra Court Appeal qua the same.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the observations in paragraph 8 of the judgment are likely to disturb and effect the working of the department.
3. On consideration of the matter we are unable to countenance the contention of the learned counsel or the apprehension of the appellant inasmuch as it was observed by the learned Judge that: "7. I have been informed by the Secretary (Revenue) Board of Revenue that under the recruitment policy 2004, 50% of the available vacancies have to be filled in for which the process will be initiated in near future.
8. Accordingly, respondent No,1 is, directed that unless the reserved quota of the children of the retired or serving employees is exhausted no appointment to the post of Patwari in Tehsil Sheikhupura shall be made on open merit and the candidature of the petitioner and others similarly placed shall be duly considered against the reserved quota of 20% whenever, recruitment is made in future. However, if the available vacancies are more than the number of the contenders for appointment against the reserved quota, these may be filled in on open merit."
' We fail to understand as to how the appellant who being the statutory functionary is supposed to execute the policy and is under the supervisory control and jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue and the Government has felt aggrieved of the above mentioned observation of the learned Judge whereby merely adherence to the recruitment policy was insisted upon, particularly when the said observation was made for future appointments, as the appointment assailed in the petition, had not been interfered with. The apprehension of the appellant is entirely unfounded which cannot be countenanced.
' We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.