CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 11-5-2004 passed in Writ Petition No,5767 of 2004 wherein constitutional petition filed by the respondent No,1 was accepted and order of the Member, Board of Revenue dated 1-9- 2003 was set aside and the order of the Executive District Officer (R) dated 27-3-2003 was restored according to which respondent No,1 was found to be eligible for the post of Lumbardar.
2. The detailed facts have already been mentioned in the impugned judgment. However, necessary facts giving rise to this petition are that the post of Lumbardar was declared vacant in- Chak No,297/GB, Tehsil Gojra, District T.T. Singh on termination of Abdul Hameed Lumbardar. The competent authority had invited applications to fill the post in question in accordance with law. 10 applications were received in all. The competent authority had recommended the action of the petitioner and respondent No,1, vide its report to District Officer (R) in view of the recommendations of the concerned authority under the provisions of West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 issued appointment letter to the petitioner. Respondent No,1 being aggrieved preferred appeal before the Executive District Officer (R) which was accepted vide order, dated 27-3-2003 and respondent No,1 was appointed as Lumbardar. Petitioner being aggrieved filed revision petition before the Member, Board of Revenue Punjab who accepted the same vide order, dated 1-9-2003. The respondent No,1 being aggrieved filed aforesaid constitution petition which was accepted vide impugned judgment.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that matter of appointment of Lumbardar is essentially an administrative function which rests exclusively in the domain of Revenue Authorities.
Member, Board of Revenue at the apex of the Revenue hierarchy had passed the order in favour of petitioner with cogent reasons which was reversed by the learned High Court in constitutional jurisdiction. The learned High Court erred in law to set aside the order of ,the Member, Board of Revenue who had the authority under the law to decide the same rightly or wrongly and mere fact that decision is incorrect does not render the decision as without lawful authority. In support of his contentions, he relied upon Abdul Ghafoor's case 1982 SCM R 202; Zulfiqar Khan Awan's case 1974 SCM R 530 and Muhammad Hussain Munir's case PLD 1974 SC 139 .
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment.
5. We have considered the submissions and have perused the record. The learned High Court has taken a pain to compare the qualifications and disqualifications of the petitioner and the respondent No,1 in terms of rule 17 as depicted from paras.7 to 10 of the impugned judgment and have come to the conclusion that the order of the learned. Member Board of Revenue was not in consonance with the mandatory provisions of West Pakistan Revenue Rules, 1968 whereas the Executive District Officer (Revenue) had given cogent reasons on the basis of the evidence on record and appointed respondent No,l. The learned Member, Board of Revenue had reversed the findings of fact recorded by Executive District Officer (R) in his order while exercising his revisional power without meeting the reasoning of the appellate Court. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that High Court has no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the matter in the discretion exercised by the Member, Board of Revenue in constitution jurisdiction has no force in view of law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See Muhammad Yousif's case 1996 SCM R 1581 and Haji Noorwar Jan's case PLD 1991 SC 531. The relevant observation is as follows:-- "The Board of Revenue at the apex of the Revenue hierarchy is charged with the statutory duty of interpreting the law, of applying it to individual cases coming up before it and laying down the law for the subordinates in the hierarchy to follow. Any error on its part in understanding the law, in applying it or in laying down the law can and must be corrected in the constitutional jurisdiction. If it is left uncorrected, it will result in subverting the rule of law."
6. Similarly, the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Member, Board of Revenue had a right to decide the case rightly or wrongly in view of the pronouncement of this Court has also no force in view of Article 4 of the Constitution and the law laid down by this Court wherein the aforesaid judgments were overruled in Utility Store Corporation Pakistan Ltd.'s case PLD 1987 SC 447.
7. The learned High Court has rightly reversed the order of the Member, Board of Revenue and restored the order of Executive District Officer (R) after judicial application of mind as evident from the paragraphs mentioned above of the impugned judgment. The learned Member, Board of Revenue had misread the record and reversed the findings of the appellate Court as mentioned above without any justification, therefore, learned High Court was justified not to remand the case to the Member Board of Revenue. The learned High Court had given finding of the fact after proper appreciation of evidence and accepted the order of EDO (R) with cogent reasons and this Court cannot interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the High Court while exercising power under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. See Agha Muhammad Ahmad's case 1994 SCM R 2032.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Leave declined.