1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. -The petitioners whose selection as a qanoongo candidate was set aside by the Commissioner Lahore Division, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 23-11-1983 whereby a constitutional petition filed by them challenging the Commissioner's order was dismissed in limine.
2. ' The petitioners like the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are the Patwaris of district Lahore. The Departmental Selection Committee examined the suitability of the Patwaris for bringing their names on the selection list of qanoongos for their eventual promotion to that post. It approved, and the Deputy Commissioner who was the competent officer, accepted the recommendation of the names of the petitioners. The two respondents represented against it to the Commissioner on various grounds. The Commissioner by his order dated 4-6-1983 found that due consideration was not given to the eligibility of the two respondents for promotion. The matter was remanded to the District Selection Committee for reconsidering the matter afresh.
3. ' The petitioners challenged the order of the Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner had no authority to interfere in the selection, that the respondents had no right to be -selected and that an appeal was not competent at all. The High Court held that the "Commissioner does not seem to have committed any illegality in remanding the matter for reconsidration". The petitioners eligibility would be reconsidered.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated. Before us all the grounds raised in the High Court and also that the petitioners were not afforded an hearing at all. In addition, reliance has been placed on the decision in Ghulam Dastgir and others v. Commissioner Lahore Division (1).
5. So far as the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Ghulam Dastgir's case is concerned, it is not at all relevant because section 21 of the Punjab {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1973 Lab. 220 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' Civil Servants Act of 1974 which was enacted afterwards does provide a right of representation where no right of appeal or review exists. In the representation it was not so much the matter of suitability which was agitated as the fact that no selection as required under the Rules was at all made inasmuch as the Committee as a body did not interview the candidates and one of them (Ishaque Masih) was not at all considered by the Committee for promotion. In the face of such an omission it could not be said that he had been found unsuitable.
6. ' On merits we find that Ishaque Masih has been totally ignored from the selection though he was entitled to be considered alongwith others. Similarly it appeared to the Commissioner that the Selection Committee was over-impressed by the weak eye-sight of Munshi Khan Patwari in ignoring him from the selection. Such defects in the selection entitled the respondents to have their matter reconsidered. As it is only a remand wherein the petitioners claim would be considered over again, no injustice has been done to them and they could not protect their selection which has been made ignoring altogether a person entitled to be considered. Violation of rule in the case of Ishaque Masih and violation of principle of natural justice in the case of the petitioners had to be remedied and remand would appear to be a 'proper method of doing so.
7. ' We do not find any merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused.