' ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, J.---By means of this Constitutional petition, the order, dated 25-3-2009 passed by the learned Member (Judicial-IV) Board of Revenue, has been brought under impeachment.
2. Facts in brief are that petitioner's father namely Saman Khan was a permanent Lumbardar of Chak No,42/D Tehsil Depalpur District Okara who on 14-11-2006 joined the majority. After his death applications were invited to fill in the post of successor Lumbardar. As many as 42 persons came forward to contest the post. It is stated that only two persons remained in the contest and the remaining withdrew their candidature. The District Collector, Okara vide his order, dated 19-3-2008 appointed the petitioner as permanent Lumbardar and appeal filed against the said order by respondent No, 1 also failed before the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) on 3-9-2008.
Both the orders were challenged in ROR No,1034 of 2008 which was accepted by the learned Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue was upset and instead respondent No,1 was appointed as permanent Lumbardar.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner bitterly argued that merits of respondent No,1 only have been discussed and case of the petitioner has not been seen and decided within the true spirit of Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules. It is stated that the petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar and has better experience qua respondent No,1 to run the affairs, It is also stated that respondent No,1 was a defaulter of the Telephone Department and the recovery proceedings have, been initiated against him.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 supported the impugned order almost for the same reasons which weighed with the learned respondent No,2.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the available record.
6. Initially, the District Collector, Okara appointed the petitioner against the post of Lambardar which had fallen vacant because of the demise of his father. The choice of the District Collector, Okara, dated 19-3-2008 was maintained by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) on 3-9-2008.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Fateh Muhammad v. Ali Muhammad (PLD 1959 W.P. (Rev.) 57, Rahim Bakhsh v. Muhammad Alam (PLD 1957'Writ Petition (Rev.) 30, Ghulam B Muhammad v. Abdul Hamid (PLD 1958 Writ Petition (Rev.) 40, Ghulam Farid v. Ahmed Din (1990 CLC 1983) and Haji Abdul Majid v. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1994 Lahore 267) to contend that choice of Collector cannot be interfered with unless found perverse. In case of Ghulam Farid (1990 CLC 1983) supra, broad proposition of law has been laid down that when all the things are equal and there is no perversity found in the choice of the Courts below, the choice of the District Collector should be preferred. In the case in hand, the Member Board of Revenue has gone by the consideration that respondent No,1 was primary pass whereas the petitioner was not educated. No doubt that the petitioner is the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar. In Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi v. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1999 Supreme - Court 484), the hereditary claim was declared repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The Revenue Officers on the basis of their rich training in the field are undoubtedly the better judges for the appointment of Lambardar but where there is a perfidious breach of the statutory Rules namely the Land Revenue Rules, the orders so passed by the Member Board of Revenue can be brought under the scrutiny of judicial review of this Court. Reference may be made to Noor Muhammad v.
Member Board of Revenue and others (1988 CLC 154) and Illahi Bux v. Member (Revenue) Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (1988 CLC 161). The Shariah also mandates that best among the candidates should be picked up. The Holy Qura'an provides in Verse 13 of Surah Al Hujaraat:-- "Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you"
The superiority of one over another in this vast brotherhood does not depend on nationality, wealth or rank but on the careful observance of duty or moral greatness. Thus a person who normally discharges obligations and duties of man and Allah, stands on better footing than those who are not endowed with these qualities. In nutshell, while making choice of any person for the post of performance of administrative duties, one's experience in the field is also one of the paramount considerations and it should be kept in view. Rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules reads:- "Matters to be considered in first appointment.---In all first appointments of headmen regard shall be had among other mattes to,--
(a) the hereditary claims of the candidate;
(b) extent of property in the estate, if there are no sub-divisions of the estate, and in case there be sub-divisions of the estate, the extent of the property in the sub-division for which appointment is to be made, possessed by the candidate;
(c) services rendered to the Government by him or by his family;
(d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness;
(e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made;
(f) his ability to undergo training in Civil Defence in the case of headmen in Tehsils situated along the Border".
The main reason which weighed with the learned Member Board of Revenue was that the petitioner had a less holding. He had 33-kanals of agricultural land but returned a finding of fact that this land was sufficient to stand as a surety for Zar-e-Bharat. The proposition of law is D too settled to admit any debate that while reversing finding, it is imperative upon the Member Board of Revenue to upset the choice only when choice of the District Collector is found to be perverse. No finding of perversity of choice has been recorded but it has been mentioned in paragraph No,7 of the judgment that the appointment of Lambardar is purely a matter of administrative nature and it is obligatory upon the Revenue Officer to appoint the suitable candidate as Lambardar. In respect of the choice of both the Courts below, no finding with regard to the legality or perversity has been recorded and the learned Member Board of Revenue, in fact, closed the case of the petitioner for insufficient reasons. The judgment is non-speaking judgment an,d running counter to the view laid down in Gouranga Mohan Sikandar v. The Collector of Imports and Exports and 2 others (PLD 1970 SC 158). Comparative merits of the candidates and the plea of the petitioner that he had better experience because not only father of the petitioner but his grandfather was also Lambardar, has not been considered. The impugned order, dated 25-3-2009 passed by the learned respondent No,2 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. After correcting error in the judgment, the case is remanded to the learned Member Board of Revenue to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the meritorious record possessed by the respective candidates. However, there shall be no order as to costs.