1. ' Sher Muhammad, the last incumbent of the office of Lambardar in Chak No.346/G.B., Tehsil and District Toba Tek Singh expired on 1-12-1982. His death gave rise to a dispute between his heirs/sons for succession to the office of the deceased Lambardar. After usual formalities by the Revenue Authorities, applications were invited to fill in the vacancy to the office of the deceased Lambardar. Case was duly processed. Vide order dated 2-8- 1983, Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Toba Tek Singh appointed Bashir Ahmad son of the deceased Lambardar. Applications of Amir Ali and Zulfiqar Ali were rejected. The right of Muhammad Anwar to succeed to the office of Lambardari on the rule of primogeniture was ignored by learned Collector on the sole ground that he was convicted in a theft case in the year 1959 and was fined Rs.500. Two appeals were preferred against this order, one by Muhammad All son of Sher Muhammad and other by Muhammad Anwar son of Sher Muhammad, before the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad. By a consolidated order dated 26-12- 1983 Muhammad Anwar's appeal was accepted while that of Muhammad Ali was rejected. In para. 7 of the appellate order, learned Commissioner observed:- "I have considered the arguments of both the parties and examined the record. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of Muhammad Anwar appellant carry sufficient force. The learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab in a case Lal Khan v. Bakhtawar decided on 29-12-1958 held in a similar case the eldest son of the deceased Lambardar eligible to be appointed as a Lambardar.
2. ' In view of the above facts, I accept the appeal of Muhammad Anwar and set aside the order of the lower Court.
3. Muhammad Anwar appellant is appointed as Lambardar of the village under rule 19 of the Revenue Ruels, 1968."
4. ' ' In the earlier paragraph, the Commissioner observed:- "So far as the conviction of Muhammad Anwar appellant is concerned, he was convicted 30/40 years ago and now he has turned a new leaf, therefore, he cannot be debarred from the appointment as a Lambardar."
5. ' Bashir Ahmad did not agitate the matter further before Board of Revenue. The contest to the office before the Board of Revenue was thus confined between two brothers Muhammad Ali and Muhammad Anwar alone.
6. Revision preferred by Muhammad Ali calling in question the appellate order of the Commissioner dated 26-12- 1983 did not succeed and was dismissed on 24-1-1984 by learned Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore.
7. ' Orders appointing Muhammad Anwar as Lambardar of the Chak No.346/G.B. have been assailed in constitutional jurisdiction with prayer to declare them to have been passed without lawful authority and without jurisdiction.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The main burden of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch.Riasat Ali Advocate was that Muhammad Anwar was convicted in a theft case and was sentenced to a fine of Rs.500 in the year 1959, therefore, he was clearly disqualified for appointment to the office of a Lambardar. The offence of theft involved moral turpitude which seriously reflected on his capability to run the office meant to provide a link between his co-villagers and the local administration. Conviction was a clear disqualification and the authorities i.e. learned Commissioner and learned Member, Board of Revenue manifestly misdirected themselves in ignoring this vital disqualification. Though Muhammad Anwar being the eldest son of deceased Lambardar was ordinarily to be appointed yet in face of this serious infirmity attaching to his candidature he was to be ignored and instead the present petitioner was entitled to be appointed. When merits are compared, the petitioner ranks head and shoulder above his elder brother i.e. Muhammad Anwar.
8. Learned counsel placed reliance upon rule 19(2)(c) of Land Revenue Rules, 1968 to contend that a disqualification which may furnish a ground for dismissal should also be taken into consideration while making the original appointment.
4. It is admitted that Muhammad Anwar is the eldest son of Sher Muhammad deceased, Lambardar. Except for the alleged disqualification he was entitled to the appointment on the basis of rule of primogeniture. This is not contested by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that Muhammad Anwar was convicted in the year 1959 and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500. Since then, upto the time of making of his appointment, there was no complaint against Muhammad Anwar. At least none has come on record. Office of Lambardar is an administrative appointment and no one has a vested right to be appointed as Lambardar. Their Lordships of Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Abdul Ghafoor v. Member, Board of Revenue and another 1982 SCMR 202 observed:- "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are inclined to agree with the High Court that no one has a vested right to be appointed as Lambardar and the relevant authorities select the persons best suited for the purpose with a view to facilitate the performance of administrative functions entrusted to Lambardars. In the present case all the competent authorities on the revenue side Collector, Commissioner and the Member, Board of Revenue, after considering merits of both the sides, have ultimately selected Nawab Khan respondent for the office in question. The learned Judges of the High Court were, therefore, justified in observing that even if the final order of the Member, Board of Revenue is assumed to be erroneous it could not be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court."
9. ' Office of a Lambardar serves as a link betwen the local populace and the administration. He has a charter of duties assigned to him under Land Revenue Rules. Judgment regarding suitability otherwise for the appointment to the office of Lambardar, therefore, lies with the relevant Revenue authorities. Petitioner's conviction for theft in the year 1959 has been considered and found to offer no insuperable obstacle in his appointment as Lambardar of the estate. It has been rightly observed by learned Commissioner that Muhammad Anwar has turned a new leaf in his life. This is evident from this fact alone that no complaint against him was forthcoming since 1959, during all this period of 24 years. Mistake committed once in the year 1959, for which he had already been punished adequately cannot be allowed to haunt his future for ever. Muhammad Anwar has availed chances of recovery. To punish respondent ,Muhammad Anwar again for this sole act of dereliction for which he was found guilty and punished in the year 1959 tantamounts to penalising him perpetually. This would be denying to him the benefits of recovery. He has shown by his conduct that any propensity to crime which once was found to be a trait of his character, by Court, has wholly disappeared over course of years. It is in these circumstances that the Commissioner of the Division and learned Member, Board of Revenue considered the contestants' claims on merits and found Muhammad Anwar to be best fitted to perform the duties of a village Lambardar. When the authorities vested with jurisdiction, after survey of the entire circumstances, chose to appoint respondent Muhammad Anwar, I see no illegality in his selection and the resultant choice.
10. F The petitioner, as stated above, has no legal vested right to the office. There is no merit in the writ petition, which fails and is dismissed in limine.