' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Noor Ahmed petitioner has challenged the orders, dated 24-9-2007 and 10-4-2007, passed by Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan, respectively.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the institution of this writ petition are that Muhammad Musa father of Ali Ahmad respondent No,3 was appointed as Lambardar of Chak No,62/D, Tehsil and District Pakpattan after the death of Muhammad Akhtar deceased Lambardar, vide order, dated 5-4-2000 passed by the District Collector, Pakpattan. Noor Ahmad petitioner and one Asad Ullah Khan preferred appeals against said appointment before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, who vide order, dated 13-9-2000, accepted the appeals and remanded the case to the District Collector, Pakpattan for deciding the case afresh. Muhammad Musa father of respondent No,3 agitated the said order before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore through R.O.R. No,2116 of 2000 with the plea that the Commissioner, Multan was not competent to remand the case under Rule 6(A)(a) of the Land Revenue Rules. The learned Member (Judicial-II) Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order, dated 15-11-2002 remanded the case to the District Officer (Revenue) Pakpattan with the direction that Lambardar of the Chak might be appointed by inviting applications afresh.
Consequently, the case was taken up for appointment of Lambardar and fresh applications were invited by the Tehsildar/A.C.-I, Pakpattan and consequent upon wide proclamation by the Revenue Field Staff in the Mauza, 31 candidates submitted applications for the office of Lambardar. Four applications were filed due to lack of interest by the applicants whereas one applicant withdrew his right of candidature in favour of Noor Ahmad petitioner while seven candidates surrendered in favour of Ali Ahmad respondent No,3. The remaining 19 candidates contested for the office of Lambardar and the Tehsildar Pakpattan vide his report, dated .28-2-2005, recommended the name of Ali Ahmad son of Muhammad Musa respondent No,3 for appointment as Lambardar. The .Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Pakpattan also endorsed the report of the Tehsildar Pakpattan to the District Officer (Revenue) Pakpattan. However, the District Officer (Revenue) Pakpattan referred the report back with the observation that Ali Ahmad respondent No,3 being defaulter of Tawan and Government dues could not be recommended for the said post. Subsequently, the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan summoned all the contested candidates and recommended the name of Noor Ahmad petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. Consequently, the District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan appointed Noor Ahmad petitioner as Lambardar of Chak No,62/D, Tehsil and District Pakpattan vide order, dated 28-11-2006.
3. Being aggrieved by the above-said order respondent No,3 Ali Ahmad filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan which was accepted vide order dated 10-4-2007.
Against the said order, Noor Ahmad petitioner preferred revision petition under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 before the learned Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore which has been dismissed vide order dated 24-9-2007. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders passed by both the forums below are illegal, void, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect as the District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan had referred back the file with the observation that Ali Ahmed respondent No,3 could not be recommended for his appointment as Lambardar being defaulter of Tawan and Government dues rather he after hearing both the contesting candidates and providing opportunity of hearing to all the candidates had appointed the petitioner as permanent Lambardar vide order, dated 28- 11-2006. The orders passed by the District Officer (Revenue) being Head on the Administrative side had attained finality and Executive District Officer (Revenue) had no authority to interfere in the said orders. The petitioner was a mature person of 67 years who had been working as Nazim Salat Committee and Chairman Local Ushr and Zakat Committee and he was also more educated as compared to respondent No,3 who was an illiterate person. It is also contended that both the forums below, the learned Member (Judicial-VI) Board of Revenue Punjab, and the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan in their orders have wrongly held that the petitioner's credentials were not impressive as criminal cases were pending against him and his brother while ignoring the facts that no person can be deprived of appointment as Lambardar mere on the basis of registration of case unless he has been convicted or sentenced by the Court of competent jurisdiction whereas the petitioner had been acquitted of the cases registered against him.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the impugned orders passed by both the forums below and the report submitted by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner with due care and caution.
6. Admittedly, office of Lambardar is in the nature of an agent of the Government to perform prescribed functions and appointment of Lambardar is ordinarily made for fiscal purpose and for assisting Government functionaries in collection of revenue, same therefore, cannot be claimed as a matter of right in constitutional petition as no one has vested right to be appointed as Lambardar and the relevant authorities select the persons best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate the performance of administrative functions entrusted to the Lambardars. In the instant case the application moved by respondent No,3 was processed in accordance with law and he was adjudged to be a suitable person for the appointment of Lambardar by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) vide his order, dated 10-4-2007 which was upheld by the learned Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
7. It is significant to point out here that the factors to be considered by the Competent Authority for appointment of a Lambardar were his strength of character, education, knowledge and engagement in national building activities and capacity to discharge the rights and obligation towards his fellow-beings along with the disqualification prescribed by the competent authority in Rule 18(2) of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 and duties of headman in Rule 22, thereof.
It has been the consistent view of the superior courts that no one has a right to claim appointment on the basis of any preference and the main criteria is the fitness of the person qua the responsibilities and duties. Petitioner's attempt to become Lambardar did not succeed before the two forums below, i,e, Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan and the Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue Punjab, who were unanimous in the appointment of respondent No,3 as Lambardar. Member Board of Revenue had noted that the credentials of the petitioner were not impressive as criminal cases were pending against him and his brother. Ali Ahmad respondent No,3 was found suitable for appointment as permanent Lambardar by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Pakpattan and the Member (Judicial-VI) Board of Revenue Punjab as he was of 42 years and owned 92 Kanals of agricultural landed property. He was already performing duties as temporary Lambardar and had been depositing Government dues into Government treasury timely after recovering the same from landlords and at that time no dues were outstanding against him. On the other hand, Noor Ahmad petitioner was an old man of 70 years, holding 41 Kanals in the Chak who had been involved in cases of criminal and moral turpitude. Ali Ahmad respondent No,3 had comparatively better merit than the petitioner who was aged about 70 years whereas respondent No,3 Ali Ahmad is only 42 years of age and it is the time of new generation and he be provided opportunity to prove his worth. Respondent No,3 being younger in age than the petitioner would undertake work and would discharge the duty and responsibility as Lambardar in more befitting manner. The one consideration amongst others is the land owned by them, the petitioner only owned small portion of land, i,e, 41 Kanals in the Chak whereby he may not have influence on the land holders in the Chak.
8. Moreover, selection of Lambardar can only be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction if there is any jurisdictional error. Both the forums below have not violated the rules relating to the appointment of Lambardar and such choice had been confirmed up to the Board of Revenue, therefore, the same cannot be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or violation of any rule for the appointment of respondent No,3 as Lambardar. The orders passed by both the forums below are unexceptionable and call for no interference as no legal infirmity or jurisdictional error is pointed out in appointing respondent No,3 as Lambardar, hence, this petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in limine.