KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.---To start with I must say that this is a case of crude misuse of official position and authority on the part of the District Co-ordination Officer, Multan.
2, In February, 2005, the posts of Naib Tehsildars/Revenue Officers Shujahabad-II Jalalpur Pirwala and Makhdoom Rasheed had fallen vacant. In pursuance of Chief Minister's directive No,DS-VI/C.
M/05/0T-47/6.1252 dated 17-1-2005, the additional charge of the above said posts was assigned to Qanugos; namely, Tasadduq Hussain and Manzoor Ahmad, petitioners, vide Order No,18 PA-DCO dated 3-2-2005 by the D.C.O, Multan.
3. Naib Tehsildars/Revenue Officers, Multan and Gajjuhatta, Tehsil Shujaabad were transferred in September, 2006, without substitute. In obedience to an order of the District Co-ordination Officer, Multan, the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Multan, assigned the additional charge/duty of the above said vacant posts of Naib Tehsildars to Khalid Mahmood and Muhammad Javed, Qanugos/petitioners till the posting of regular incumbents vide office order No, EDO(R.)PA/227 dated 28-9-2006.
4. Abdur Rashid and Abdul Hameed, Qanugos who are not the petitioners before the Court were also accommodated by the D.C.O, Multan by posting them as Naib Tehsildar Shujaabad-II and Saddar Multan.
5. The copies of the above said orders had been dispatched to all concerned except Secretary (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab. The learned Senior Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, learnt about the encroachment upon the powers of Board of Revenue by DCO, Multan from his own source and set aside theabove said orders favourable to Qanugos/petitioners and 2 others vide order No,663-2008/408-E (F-IV) dated 31.3-2008 with an observation:-- "The following orders of DCO, Multan are hereby declared null and void and are set aside for the reasons that the same have been passed without any jurisdiction/competence as the DCO Multan is not a Revenue Officer within the hierarchy provided in the land Revenue Act, 1967.
With effect from the issuance of this order any revenue work done or any action taken by the above mentioned officials as Naib Tehsildars shall be illegal, void and without jurisdiction."
6. Out of aforementioned six Qanugos, four petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against the Senior Member (Revenue)
Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore D.C.O, Multan and Executive District Officer (Revenue) Multan and have called in question the legality of the order of learned Senior Member Board of Revenue with the plea that after having performed the duties of Naib Tehsildar against the vacant posts on transfer of Naib Tehsildars by the Board of Revenue, Punjab valuable legal rights accrued in their favour making them entitled to hold the post of Naib Tehsildar and that the postings and transfers of Revenue Officer was governed by Punjab Local Govt. Ordinance and not under the Land Revende Act, 1967.
7. I find it appropriate to decide first as to whether or not the DCO and the Qanugos fall within any of the categories of Revenue Officers.
Classes of Revenue Officers are mentioned in section 7 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, (hereinafter be called the Act) as under:-- (a). The Board of Revenue; (b). The Executive District Officer (Revenue); (c). The Collector (d). The Assistant Collector of the first grade (Tehsildar); (e). The Assistant Collector of the second grade (Naib Tehsildar); The above said provisions of section 7 of the Act has conclusively established that Girdawar of the Circle and DCO of the District do not fall within any of the categories of Revenue Officers. After coming to the conclusion that DCO and Girdawar are not the Revenue Officers, the next question which requires determination is as to which is the authority to make appointment of Naib Tehsildar/Assistant Collector grade II as stop gap arrangement or on ad hoc basis against the vacant posts. Sections 11, 13 (2) (3), (14) (1) (2) (4) and 17 of the Act govern the point under discussion. A combined examination of the above said statutory provisions of the Act would provide a basis to say with certainty that it was/is the prerogative of Board of Revenue to make appointment of Naib Tehsildar on permanent basis or as stop gap arrangement. Section 13(2) ibid clearly lays down that the general superintendence and control over all other Revenue Officers (including EDO(R), DO(R), Tehsildars and Naib Tehsildars) shall be vested in, and all such-officers shall be subordinate to the Board of Revenue. Powers to distribute official business amongst Revenue Officers also vests in the Board of Revenue under section 14(1) of the Act subject to the condition that no such order of distribution of officials business shall empower any Revenue Officer to exercise any power or deal with any business which he would not be competent to exercise or deal with. Under subsection 2 of section 16, the Board of Revenue has the power to confer on any person all or any of the powers of an Assistant Collector by Notification. It is not understandable as to how and with what authority the DCO, Multan assigned the official business of Revenue Officer/Assistant Collector grade II to the Qanugos, who were/are not possessed with the powers of Revenue Officer. The DCO was not a Revenue Officer of any category and was, therefore, not competent to delegate the power of Revenue Officer to the Qanugos, not working under his administrative control. The posts in question fell vacant on transfer of Naib Tehsildars. The available record does not tell as to what were the circumstances which prevented the Executive District (Revenue) Officer Multan, to assign the additional charge of vacant posts to other Naib Tehsildar working in the District. The DCO, Multan transferred Gohar Nawaz Dhaggo, Naib Tehsildar, from Makhdoom Rasheed to city Multan and posted Manzoor Ahmad, Girdawar, at his place for which, he was not competent nor he had the power and authority to assign the additional charge of Naib Tehsildar to a Girdawar. The DCO made postings and transfers in pursuance of a directive of Chief Minister. Under the law, the Chief Minister does not have the powers to transfer any Naib Tehsildar from one station to another station nor he is supposed to authorize the DCO to post any Girdawar against any vacant post of Naib Tehsildar. The directive of the Chief Minister and posting and transfer orders of Qanugos and Naib Tehsildars by the DCO must be ignored being nullity in the eyes of law.
8. Admittedly, the DCO is not the appointing authority of Naib Tehsildars. In Naveeda Tufail's case reported as 2003 PLC (C.S) 69,. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan has determined the controversy of ad hoc appointments in express terms that only the appointing authority can make temporary appointments of officials against vacant posts as stop-gap-arrangement for a limited period after initiating the process of regular appointment against the said posts and of only those persons possessed with prescribed qualification for such posts. The appointments/postings and transfers in question by the DCO do not qualify the legal test laid down by the precedent case. At the cost of repetition, it is noteworthy that the DCO was/is not the appointing authority of Naib Tehsildars and there was no occasion to make appointments/posting of Naib Tehsildars as stop- gap-arrangement. In the normal course of events, the DCO or the EDO(R) should have made a reference to the Board of Revenue Punjab for posting of Naib Tehsildars against the vacant posts in the district or for making stop gap arrangement. The most shocking aspect of the matter is that the DCO posted the Qanugos as Naib Tehsildars as stop-gap-arrangement by assuming the role of Senior Member Board of Revenue. I have already observed that conferment of powers upon Revenue Officers is the prerogative of Board of Revenue and I could not understand as to how the DCO had delegated the powers of Revenue Officers to the Qanungos with which he himself was not equipped.
9. Now adverting to the contention of learned counsel that posting and transfer of the Qanungos and the Revenue Officers was to be governed by the Punjab Local Govt. Ordinance, 2001 and Rules framed thereunder, I would say without any fear of contradiction that the contention is misconceived. Notification No, 2276-2001/1508-E(F) V, dated 15th August, 2001 issued by the Govt.
Of Punjab is a complete answer to the arguments, which is reproduced below for ready reference:- - In exercise of the powers conferred by section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967(XVII of 1967) section 105 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (XVI of 1887), section 3(0) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, section 2(9) of the Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899), section 3 of the Colonization of Govt. Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 (V of 1912) and all other powers under any other law enabling it in this behalf and in supersession of all pervious notifications issued in this behalf, and keeping in view the provision of the Punjab Local Govt. Ordinance, 2001 (XIII of 2001) the Govt. Of the Punjab and the Board of Revenue, Punjab direct that with effect from the fourteenth day of August, 2001, the powers being exercised and functions being performed by a Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, District Collector or Assistant Commissioner/Collector of a Sub-Division under any land administration or fiscal law, immediately before the fourteenth day of August, 2001 shall be exercised and performed by the officer or Court as the case may be noted against each in the Schedule. #TBS Officer or Court competent to exercise powers and perform functions under an enactment with effect from the fourteenth day of August, 2001. #TBE #TBS Officer or Court competent to exercise powers and perform functions under an enactment immediately before the fourteenth day of August, 2001 #TBE SCHEDULE Officer or Court competent to exercise powers and perform functions under an enactment immediately before the fourteenth day of August, 2001Officer or Court competent to exercise powers and perform functions under an enactment with effect from the fourteenth day of August, 2001.
Commissioner of the Division Executive District Officer (Revenue)
Deputy Commissioner District Officer (Revenue)
District Collector District Officer (Revenue)
Assistant Commissioner Collector of Sub-DivisionDeputy District Officer (Revenue)
It is manifest from a bare perusal of the Notification that after having taken into consideration the provisions of Punjab Local Govt. Ordinance, 2001, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, only the Executive District Officer (Revenue), District Officer (Revenue) and Deputy District Officer (Revenue) had been empowered to perform functions touching revenue administration to the exclusion of DCO.
10. The Board of Revenue, Punjab, restraint the Revenue Officers working in the field from making promotion/appointment and posting of Qanungo as Naib Tehsildar even on provisional/current charge basis not possessed with the prescribed qualification i,e, three years service as Qanungo and diploma of Naib Tehsildari departmental examination vide the Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue Administration Posts) Rules, ,1990. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that the posting of Khalid Mahmood and Muhammad Javed, Qanungos as Naib Tehsildars had been made by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan, provisionally, and not by the DCO as observed by the Board of Revenue vide impugned order. For two reasons no importance could be attached to the contention of learned counsel. First, the EDO(R) Multan did not pass the said order in question independently. He simply complied with the order of DCO; Secondly, it is immaterial as to which officer had signed the order in question, allowing the Qanungos to discharge the duties of Revenue Officers as the DCO or the EDO(R) were not competent to do so under the law.
11. Abdul Rashid, Tasadduq Hussain and Manzoor Ahmad, Qanungos discharged the duties of Naib Tehsildar with effect from 3-2-2005 to 29-3-2008. Khalid Mahmood, and Muhammad Javed, Qanungos exercised the powers of Revenue Officer from 28-9-2006, to 2006 to 29-3-2008. I have already observed that they were/are not Revenue Officers in terms of the provisions of Land Revenue Act. I have also concluded that the DCO was not competent to delegate the powers of Revenue Officer to the Qanungos as he himself did not possess the same power and authority. The Qanungos performed the duties of Revenue Officer/Assistant Collector Grade-II for years under the illegal orders of DCO, Multan giving rise to so many legal and factual complications. The DCO, Multan played havoc with Revenue Administration and I leave his conduct to the judgment of Govt.
Of the Punjab under whose administrative control he has been placed. Be that as it may, the fact remains that learned Senior Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, rightly declared the orders in question as null and void with no legal effect.
12. With these observations, the writ petition being without substance is dismissed in limine.
13. The Additional Registrar of this Bench is directed to dispatch a copy of this order to Secretary Services and General Administration Department Government of the Punjab and the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab for such action on administrative side as may be deemed appropriate.