SAFDAR SALEEM SHAHID, J. Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Member (Judicial-VIII), Board of Revenue Punjab (respondent No.1), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, orders dated 11.09.2007 and 13.07.2009 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) and Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, were upheld and respondent No.2 was declared as Lambardar of Chak No.139-EB, Tehsil Arifwala, District Pakpattan.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary for decision of the instant petition are that on death of one Ghulam Muhammad, Lambardar of Chak No.139-EB, Tehsil Arifwala District Pakpattan on 17.03.2002, applications for appointment of new Lambardar were invited with perm ission of the District Collector , Pakpa ttan. Out of 29 applicants, 17 candidates withdrew their applications, during scrutiny . On a comprehensive report and recommendations of Tehsildar and Deputy District Officer (Revenue), the District Collector appointed the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 24.09.2002. Respondents No.1 and 2 along with one Abdul Razak filed their separate appeals before the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan. However , the learned Senior Member , Board of Revenue, entrusted the case to the learned Member (Judicial-III), for disposal, who vide order dated 16.03.2006 remanded the case to the District Collector , for decision afresh. Review Petition filed against the said order was dismissed by the learned Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue, vide order dated 15.06.2006 and the order dated 16.03.2006 was maintained. On remand, the District Collector , Pakpattan vide his order dated 27.07.2006 reaffirmed his previous order and appoin ted the petitioner as Lambardar of Chak No.139-EB. Respondents No.1 and 2 along with Abdul Razak again challenged the order of District Collector by filing appeals before the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan, however , during pendency thereof, Abdul Razak died. The learned EDO (Revenue), Pakpattan accepted the appeal of Rana Zulfiqar Ali respondent No.2 and by setting aside the order of District Collector appointed him as ambardar . The present petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab who vide his order dated 13.07.2009 dismissed the revision petition and upheld the orders dated 11.09.2007 passed by the learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan. The writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court was also dismissed and he filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1448-L/2016, which was converted into Civil Appeal No.260-L/2016 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and case was remanded to the Board of Revenue for decision afresh after carrying out a detailed comparison of both the candidates in light of the requirements of law contained in Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. Thereafter the order assailed through the instant petition was passed.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. Although appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar was based on the recommendations of Tehsildar and Deputy District Officer (Revenue) and being owner of land measuring 41 kanals in the Chak, but the Executive District Officer (Revenue) while taking into consideration that the petitioner was residing in Arifwala City in connection with his business and was not permanently residing in the Chak in addition to the fact that during his tenure as Lambardar his conduct was not appreciable and was contrary to the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967, accepted the appeal of respondent No.2 and appointed him as Lambardar of the Chak, through order dated 11.09.2007, which order was upheld by the Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, through order dated 13.07.2009. Even the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed through judgment dated 17.05.2016.
However , the case was remanded back to the Board of Revenue by Hon'ble Supreme Court for decision afresh after carrying out a detailed comparison of both the candidates in light of the requirements of law contained in Rule 17 of the W est Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968.
5. The main contention on behalf of the petitioner was that since in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi vs. The Islam ic Republic of Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 484) hereditary claim is un-Islamic, respondent No.2 should not have been awarded the said marks and in case the same are excluded the petitioner becomes entitle to be appointed as Lambardar . Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- "All these principles laid down by the Holy Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (SAW) are sufficient to indicate that the appointments to an office of the Government are to be made on the basis of merits. Verse 2:124 of the Holy Qur'an has not approved the concept of hereditary claim as sole basis or criteria for appointment to an office, what to say of applying rule of primogen iture in making appointment of a successor to the office and the principle deducible appear to be that offices which are regarded as sacred trust are to be passed on to those who are entitled thereto i.e. to those who are qualified and trustworthy to discharge the duties of office honestly . Thus, merits of the appointee with reference to the requirements of the job assigned is to be the criteria. What should be the qualifications of the person to be appo inted would naturally depend on the nature of the employment, service or the job keeping, however , in view the distinction between employment against a job or service and tilling a public office which entails discharge of obligations of State or functions of sovereign nature. ........The objection with regard to provision of hereditary claim amongst other factors to be considered in matter of appointment under Rule 17 is without merit as this rule provides the relevant considerations which the Collector is to keep in view while making selection of the most suitable persons amongst the candidates. The cause to raise objection in respect of this Rule arose as the officer in the graded hierarchy of', the Revenue administration in their judgments came to accord "hereditary claims", overriding effect, as against other considerations of area, tribe community etc. If "hereditary claim" is taken only as one of the relevant considerations, as contemplated in the rules, in favour of a candidate whose other merits are favourable comparable with other contestants, no cause o' grievance will arise, rather it will meet the plea of the administration that by appoin ting a person from amongst the nearest eligible heir of previous Lambar dar continuity in the work and in the liaison created between the land owners and the administration is intended to be achieved. Rule 17 is, therefore, not repugnant to any Injunction of Islam."
6. It is very much clear from the above quoted portion of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the Holy Qur'an has not approved the concept of hereditary claim as sole basis or criteria for appointment to an office and that Rule 17 is not repugnan t to any Injunction of Islam. However , in the instant case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has remanded case for decision afresh after carrying out a detailed comparison of both the candidates in light of the requirements of law contained in Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. For ready reference Rule 17 is reproduced as under:-
17. Matters to be considered in first appointment.- In all first appointments of headmen regard shall be had among other matters 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 .
7. Since this case was remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for decision afresh after carrying out a detailed comparison of both the candidates in light of the requirements of law contained in Rule 17 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, this Court can only see as to whether the said directio ns have been complied with by the Board of Revenue in its decision dated 09.08.2017? It is noticed that the learned Member Board of Revenue while taking into consideration the factors mentioned in the relevant rule, noted that the petitioner mostly resides at Arifwala City in connection with his business and cannot be available to the residents of the Chak No.139-EB, whereas respondent No.2 being permanent resident of the Chak in question and having worked with his father , had experience of recovery of government dues and other duties of Lambardar , was better candidate for the office of Lambardar . It was further noted that the petitioner due to having his other business at Arifwala may not be able to perform the duties whole heartedly and efficiently . In the circumstances, the Board of Revenue having not found any solid ground to interfere in the orders dated 11.09.2007 and 13.07.2009 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue) and Member (Judicial-VI) respectively , rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner .
8. Even otherwise, in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regardin g comparison of the candidates in accordance with Rule 17, this Court being not a Court of appeal, cannot interfere with the impugned concurrent orders of the Executive District Officer (Revenue) and the Member Board of Revenue in absence of any non- compliance with the directions contained in the judgment of remand passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the learned Member (Judicial-VIII), Board of Revenue, Punjab. The instant petition had no merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.