Salim Khan, J.--It was alleged by the petitioner in his writ petition that the name of the petitioner was enlisted as Patwari candidate in District Karak. He was admitted in the Patwar School at Revenue Academy Karak vide order dated 7.10.2003 of the Principal, Revenue Academy Karak, on the recommendation of the District Officer (Revenue and Estate), District Karak. The examination, after completion of the training, was announced to commence on 1.7.2004, but no roll number was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge Takht-e- Nasrati, Karak, but only a notice was issued in that case. Petitioner filed a evasion petition in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Karak, who provisionally allowed the petitioner to appear in the examination. The petitioner appeared for examination in 4 papers of theory and for 2 racticals. The examination was to end on 10.7.2004, but the learned additional District Judge dismissed the revision petition on 7.7.2004, hence he petitioner was unable to appear in the examination of remaining appears and practicals.
2. He filed the writ petition in this Court. Comments of respondents Nos, 1 and 3 were called for, which were received, to which rejoinder was filed by the petitioner. Keeping in view Para-B of the grounds of parawise comments submitted by Respondent No, 1, pre-addition notice.
3. We heard Mr. Abdul Mabood Khattak, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Obaidullah Anwar, Addl.
AG for Respondents Nos, 1 to 4, along-with Respondent No, 1 in person, as the present incumbent of the post, who also dismissed the case before us. The main discussion revolved around Para 3.10 of the Land Records Manual, which was interpreted by the parties differently. This, discussion necessitated the admission of the writ petition to full hearing during the arguments which was so admitted. The parties then argued the case in detail.
4. The only contention of the present incumbent of the post of Respondent No, 1 was that his predecessor-in-office had not granted permission to the present petitioner for the purposes of admission in school, and therefore, no roll number was issued to him, except that he was temporarily allowed to sit in the examination on the orders of the Court:
5. For the sake of convenience, Para or of Chapter 3 under Part-III regarding Parwar Schools, of the Land Records Manual is reproduced as under:-- "3.10 Patwar schools: The following general instructions have been issued for observance in the organization and management of Patwari schools in districts. Settlement Officers also should be guided by them as far as possible:--
(i) When required, a single school will be opened for the Province as a whole, or one school at each divisional headquarters or other suitable center in the division on the 1st February and will close on the 31st October 9 months at the discretion and with the sanction of Director of Land Records. Any candidates entered in the register may attend the school and present himself for the Patwari examination. Unaccepted candidates may be allowed to join the Patwar School with the permission of Director of Land Records. They shall be required to pay both tuition fee and examination fee while the accepted Patwari and Kanungo candidates shall pay the examination fee only."
6. The salient features of the above mentioned instructions are that (1) a school is to be open at the discretion and with the sanction of Director Land Records. (2) Any candidate entered in the register may attend the school and present himself for the Patwari examination. (3) Accepted Patwari and Qanungo candidates shall pay the examination fee only. (4) Unaccepted candidates may be allowed to join the Patwar School with the permission of Director of Land Records. They shall be required to pay both tuition fee and examination fee. These salient features show that the intervention of the Director of Land Records is necessary only to the extent of opening of the school, and allowing the unaccepted candidates to joint the patwar school. His intervention, therefore, is not required in the case of candidates entered in the register for their attending the school and presenting themselves for the patwari examination, and that they are required to pay the examination fee only.
7. The ambiguity appears to have arisen out of the words `unaccepted candidates' appearing in the above mentioned instructions. In order to further explain the above words, it is necessary to quote Paras 6 and 7 of Chapter 3 under Part-II regarding Patwari candidates which are to the following effect:-- "3.6. Register of Patwari candidates: (a) For each Tehsil a register of candidates is kept in Form P.1 given in Appendix G. In this register candidates shall be entered in the order in which their applications are accepted, but priority of entry shall give no priority of claim to appointment.
(b)The total number of candidates in any district should never exceed fifteen per cent of the total number of Patwaris and assistant Patwaris, employed in the district. In districts under settlement this limit may be raised to thirty per cent at the discretion of the Settlement Officer. Any further increase in these percentages by the Deputy Commissioner or Settlement Officer requires the previous sanction of the Board of Revenue.
(c) Seventy-five per cent of the candidates must belong to rural areas or to the families owning or cultivating land and having rural outlook and bias.
(d)A separate list of Patwari candidates will be maintained by the Colonization Officers to meet their requirements."
"3.7. Qualifications of applicant: Application for entry in this register must be made by candidates in person to the Collector or such other officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector of the 1st grade as he shall appoint, but no name should be entered in the register except by the Collector's own order, passed after he has seen the candidate.
In the case of candidates who claim to be agriculturists, Collectors should satisfy themselves by documentary evidence that they are really so and the evidence should be preserved.
The chief qualifications of candidates are as follows:--
(1) Ability to write the Urdu character with facility and with a legible formed hand.
(2) Ability to work out correctly and quickly simple sums in arithmetic such as occur in a Patwari's daily work.
(3) Good physique and health, good eye-sight, age not less than 17 or more than 23 years.
Note: Deputy Commissioner may, however, accept candidates above the age of 23 years with the special sanction of the Director of Land Records."
8. The candidates whose applications have been accepted under Clause (a) of Chapter 3,6 are 'accepted candidates', and the applicants, after acceptance of their applications under the Note of Chapter 3.7 also become `accepted candidates'. It was in contrast to the words 'accepted candidates' mentioned in the paras mentioned above 'that the words 'unaccepted candidates' were used in Para 3.10. In order to provide further authority to the Director of Land Recordg, over and above the authority of the Collector or an Assistant Collector or any other officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector 1st grade, as appointed by the Collector, he was authorized to allow `unaccepted candidates' also to the school.
9. It is in Letter No, 2729/DK dated 5.11.2003 by the District Officer, Revenue and Estate, Karak to the Director, Land Record, N.W.F.P. Peshawar that the admission of Khurshid Iqbal son of Abdul Muhammad, the present petitioner, was justified on the following grounds:-- "1. He is an enlisted candidate of District Karak.
2. He was recommended for Patwar Training for the last session vide this office memo No, 1415/Rev: School dated 24.5.2002, but was not allowed due to unavoidable circumstances by the your office.
3. He has been admitted in Revenue Academy Karak this year by the Principal Revenue Academy Karak on the recommendation on this office.
4. He has not crossed his age limits.
5. A few posts of Patwaris will fall vacant upto 2005 due to retirement of Kanungo on superannuation.
If was requested through the said letter to allow the petitioner to complete his training at Revenue Academy Karak. An other Letter No, 2785/DK dated 12.11.2003 shows that the present petitioner had obtained 552/1100 marks, while Usman Ali had obtained 532/1100 marks and a request for his continuous in the School was made in preference to Usman Ali. It appears that efforts were being made to accommodate Usman Ali recommendee by an authority. The prescribed age limit was shown by the Director Land Records as 18-25 years in his Letter No, 2770 dated 28.10.2003. It had never been the case of Respondents Nos, 1 to 4 that the present petitioner was either overage at the time of entry of his name in the register of patwari candidates, or he did not have the required qualifications at the time of permission granted to him by Respondent No, 3, on the recommendation of Respondent No, 2, or when he was first recommended for admission in the School but was not so allowed for reasons not available on the record of this case. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was an enlisted candidate whose name was entered in the register of patwari candidates. There is nothing on the record to show that the age of the petitioner was either less than 17 years or more than 25 years at the time of entry of his name in the register of patwari candidates.
10. The petitioner has already suffered due to the misunderstanding regarding the interpretation of Para 3.10 of the Land Records Manual. He, being an enlisted candidate, had a right to attend the School and present himself for the Patwari examination on payment of the examination fee only.
This right has been refused to him by the respondents. The petitioner has misused some written papers and practicals. He has a right to appear in the next coming examination for the remaining papers of his examination, but shall not be prejudiced by the commissions or omissions of the respondents in future till now provided he passes the examination under the rules.
11. We, therefore, allow the present writ petition, set aside the impugned judgments and orders of Respondents Nos, 5 and 6, and in order to clear the way for the petitioner, direct Respondents Nos, 1 to 4 to allow the petitioner to appear in the remaining papers as well as practicals in the next coming examination, and also direct them to declare his result as a whole, after marking the papers already given by him, and giving him marks for the practicals already conducted by him.