FAISAL ZAMAN KHAN, J. --- Through this petition orders dated 18.01.2015 and 13.05.2014 passed by respondent No, 1 and 2 respectively have been assailed.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that in pursuance of process for appointment of Lambardar for Chak No. 651/2/G.B. Tehsil Jaranwala District Faisalabad vide order dated 30.07.2012 District Collector, Faisalabad appointed petitioner as Lambardar. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 3 and 2 others preferred appeals against the said order of appointment. whereafter, the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 was accepted by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13.05.2014 and the order passed by the District Collector was set aside on the ground that the petitioner is a government servant (teacher in a government school), therefore, he is not eligible to be appointed as Lambardar.
3. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred a revision petition before respondent No. 1, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.01.2015, hence, this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior to culmination of the process of appointment of Lambardar, petitioner had resigned from government service which was accepted vide notification dated 12.07.2012, which is a clear index to the fact that he was no more in government service at time when he was appointed as Lambardar, therefore, he was eligible to be considered for appointment against the post of Lambardar. In order to fortify his arguments, he places reliance on a judgment reported as M. Nazir Ahmad v. Muhammad Aslam and others (2013 SCM R 363).
5. Replying to the above, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 as well as learned Law Officer submits with vehemence that petitioner, for all intents and purposes was a government servant at the time of his appointment as Lambardar as he stood retired on 31.12.2012, therefore, the District Collector fell in error by appointing the petitioner as Lambardar. Further submits that through the impugned orders, both the learned Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that petitioner was not eligible for the post of Lambardar
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that petitioner has joined government service on 01.09.1990 and admittedly his date of birth is 01.01.1953, therefore, he was supposed to retire from government service on attaining the age of superannuation (60 years) on 31.12.2012. He moved an application before Deputy District Education Officer (M), Gujranwala for issuance of his notification of retirement. A perusal of the said application, which has been placed on record by the learned A.A.G., would show that petitioner has requested the department that he will attain the age of superannuation on 31.12.2012, therefore, a notification to that effect may be issued, whereupon, on 12.07.2012 notification of his retirement was issued, which for convenience is reproduced as under:-- "OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M .EE), TEHSIL JARANWALA.
Memo. No. _____________________ Dated: 12.07.2012 SUBJECT: "RETIREM ENT ON ATTAINING THE AGE OF SUPERANNUATION."
Consequent upon attaining the age of superannuation (Age of sixty years) sanction is hereby accorded to retire from service in respect of the following persons with effect from the date mentioned as below:--- Sr No. Name with SchoolDate of birth Date of AppointmentDate of Retirement 1 Shafqat Rasool PST. Govt. P/S 651/GB01/01/1953 01/09/1990 31/12/2012 SD/- (SAKHAWAT ALI KHAN)
Dy. District Education Officer (M.EE), Tehsil Jaranwala."
The afore-mentioned notification clearly stipulates that the petitioner will be attaining the age of superannuation (60 years) on 31.12.2012 and he shall stand retired from that date.
8. Admittedly, the appointment process was completed on 30.07.2012 when the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar, however, the learned. District Collector lost sight of the fact that at that point in time petitioner, for all intents and purposes, was a government servant and as such was to retire on 31.12.2012, therefore. he could not have been considered for appointment as Lambardar.
9.In these circumstances, respondents No. 1 and 2 have rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as a Lambardar.
10.As regards the judgment of the Honourable apex Court in case of "Muhammad Nazir Ahmad" mentioned supra, it has been held that if during the process of appointment of a Lambardar, a government servant, who has also applied for the said post, stands retired prior to culmination of the appointment process, he can be considered for appointment against the post of Lambardar. If the ratio decidendi of the above judgment is applied to the case in hand, the same would not bring home any benefit or advantage to the petitioner. Admittedly. he applied for issuance of the notification of his retirement from the date of his superannuation i.e. on attaining the age of 60 years. It was not his case/request before the department that he may be given premature retirement. so that he could become eligible for appointment against the post of Lambardar. in the case in hand. although a notification of his retirement was issued by the department on 12.07 2012 however the same was to take effect from 31.12.2012. therefore, till the said date, petitioner, for all intents and purpose, was in government service, therefore. in the light of a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Muhammad Yousaf v. Member Board of Revenue and 4 others (1996 SCM R 1581) he was not eligible to be considered for appointment as a Lambardar.
11.Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a feeble attempt to attack the eligibility of respondent No. 3. which cannot be taken note of in view of the fact that since the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed as Lambardar he had no locus standi to attack the eligibility of any other candidate. In case he is aggrieved of the appointment of any ineligible candidate, he has his remedies available under the law. which shall include a writ of quo warranto under Article 199 (b)
(ii) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
12.In view of the above learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference by this Court in the concurrent findings rendered by respondents No. 1 and 2, therefore, this petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.