' MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.--- Through this Revision Petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgments and decrees of Civil Judge-XI, Bannu dated 16-12-2013 and of learned District Judge, Bannu dated 19-6-2014, vide which the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. Briefly stated facts are that the petitioner/plaintiff Awas Khan (hereinafter called as petitioner) filed a suit against the respondents/ defendants for declaration and permanent injunction. The petitioner contended that one Abbas Khan, his predecessor and other pro forma defendants had donated certain land to the respondents/department for the construction of a school in it. The petitioner further contended that the respondents are bound to offer him employment against a post of class IV according to the terms and conditions laid down in an agreement between his predecessor and other defendants and the respondents.
3. As the respondents/defendants appeared, respondent no,4 moved an application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
4. The learned trial court heard both the parties and accepted the application. Consequently, on 16-12-2013, the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. The petitioner appealed to the District Judge, but his contention could not prevail. Having failed to find favour with the two courts below, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition before this court.
5. I have heard arguments of Mr.Asghar Ali Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case.
6. The petitioner's case was that his predecessor---Abbas Khan---had donated 2 Kanals land to the education department for construction of a Government Primary School in a village called Abbas Khan Dandi Kila, District Bannu. The land in question was transferred to the respondents vide a mutation no,665, attested on 22-3-2000. The petitioner contends that the agreement of transfer of the land was subject to the condition that whenever, the vacancy of class-IV post arises in the school, the respondent shall offer employment to a person of his choice.
7. Admittedly the predecessor of petitioner granted the land in favour of Provincial Government (Education Department) through the above mentioned mutation free of cost. The main question before this court is whether the donation of land creates any legal right or entitlement in favour of petitioner, for the appointment of the post of Government institution. Needless to say, appointment to a position in a public department, such as, Education, in the present case, is to be A carried out according to a specific duly prescribed procedure. The claim of the petitioner that the said donation of land was conditional with the appointment of the said post is not recognize by law, as it is well-settled that illegal agreement does not recognize by the law. The question before this court is not new. It has been raised several times before the courts. Perusal of the case law reveals that the higher judiciary has consistently answered the question in negative. Reference to certain key rulings seems appropriate. In a 1993 case titled: "Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and 7 others" (1993 SCM R 1287), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held:--- "As regards the policy of making appointments against land grants, we find that this amounts to in fact, sale of public office for property. Not only it is against the Constitutional Law applicable to public office but is not conductive to public interest. What could be done within the framework of the law was, to create a margin of preference for those who make such grants, other; conditions of eligibility and suitability and fitness being equal. We, therefore, overrule this practice prospectively."
' The above dictum has further been supplemented in a judgment of the apex court "Umer Said and others v. District Education Officer (Female) and others" (2007 SCM R 296), declaring such appointment as void ab initio.
8. In the Munawar Khan case referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized the requirement and fulfillment of prescribed procedure for appointment in the context of constitutional directions. As the court observed:--- "What we have noticed in all these cases which are under consideration before us is that appointments of both the parties contesting the appointments were made without such advertisements, publicity or information in the locality from which the recruitments were to be made. In view of the Constitutional requirement and the interim order already passed in Human Right Case 104 of 1992 it is expected that in future all appointments shall be made after due publicity in the area from which the recruitments had to take place. This will, however, not apply to short-term leave vacancies or to contingent employm ent."
9. Coming the Case in hand, a bare reading of plaint makes it crystal clear that petitioner claims his appointment for the post of class-IV on the basis of grant of land by his predecessor. Surely, the law does not favour his contention. The cases referred above, particularly the case of Munawar Khan decided by the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan comprise of 5 Judges is directory in nature and should be strictly followed under Article 189 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Reliance can be placed on case titled "Dilbar Khan v. Muhammad Ashraf' (PLD 2013 SC 171).
10. In short, the donation of the land by the predecessor of the petitioner had not ipso facto, conferred any legal character or entitlement for appointment within the meaning of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
11. As, in view of the above, the plaint does not disclose cause of action, the law requires that such a plaint shall be buried at its inception under Order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. One can find a good number of rulings rendered by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of Pakistan. For example, "S.M. Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through legal heirs v. Malik Hassan All (Moin) through legal heirs" (2002 SCM R 338), the august Supreme Court has held:--- "It is the requirement of law that incompetent suit shall be buried at its inception. It is in the interest of the litigating parties and the judicial institution itself. The parties are saved with their time and unnecessary expenses and the court get more time to devote it for the, genuine causes."
' This view has been supplemented in another case "Raja All Shan v. Messrs Essem Hotel Limited and others" 2007 SCM R 741. The court ruled:--- "It is pertinent to mention here that in view of the Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. It is the duty of the Court to reject the plaint if, on a perusal thereto, it appears that the suit is incompetent, the parties to the suit are at liberty to draw Courts' attention to the same by way of an application. The Court can, and, in most cases hear counsel on the point involved in the application meaning thereby that the Court is not only empowered but under obligation to reject the plaint, even without any application from a party, if the same is hit by any of the clauses mentioned under rule 11 of Order VII, C.P.C."
' In recent case "Mir Sahib Jan v. Jana (2011 SCM R 27), the Hon'ble apex court observed:--- "The prime object and purpose of establishment of Courts is to dispense justice to the parties before it in accordance with law and to discourage frivolous litigation. The philosophy behind the provisions of Order VII, Rule II, C.P.C. i,e, rejection of the plaint at the initial stage, is based on the concept, "nipping the evil in the bud before it surfaces." For the application of this golden rule guiding principles have been laid down by the Courts from time to time. False and frivolous litigation undoubtedly need to be curbed and stringent measures should be adopted by the Courts at all levels."
12. On the strength of my above discussion, I have reached to conclusion that both the courts below have rightly rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. The matter thus does not call for interference by this court.
13. The instant revision petition is dismissed in limine.