' Syed Muhammad Hashim Rizvi, Superintendent, Cholistan Development Authority, Bahawalpur, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, as respondent.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the respondent be directed to consider him for recruitment as B-Class Tehsildar Candidate as he is eligible for the same.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under :- The appellant joined service in 1955 as Junior Clerk in the Revenue Department. He was promoted as Assistant in 1971 and confirmed as such in the year 1976. Later on he was sent on deputation to Holliston Development Authority Bahawalpur as a Superintendent Colonies where he is working as such.
4. I have heard the learned counsel, for the appellant at length as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant's name was recommended twice by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, for bringing his name in the list of B- Class Tehsildar Candidates as he was working in the Colony Branch as Assistant for full 2 years and later on continued in the Colony Branch though on deputation but as Superintendent, Cholistan Development Authority, which in fact is a Department of Colonization. It has been pointed out by him that the learned Member (Rev.), Board of Revenue, has brought the names of Mohammad Anwar, Muhammad Hussain Head Clerks (Colony) of Deputy Commissioners' Offices, Sahiwal and Kasur although they have been shown as Head Clerk (Colony) yet they were actually Assistants, as no such post of Head Clerk exists in Deputy Commissioner's Offices. It has been submitted that the learned Member. Board of Revenue has committed an act of discrimination as vide order, dated 2nd July, 1981, one Nur Khan, Junior Clerk office of the Extra Assistant Colonization Officer, Thal, Bhakkar, Sargodha, who was ineligible for placement in list of B-Class Tehsildar candidates, by relaxation of rules, had been placed as such, where the appellant who was eligible as well as better qualified person than him, has been ignored without any cogent reasons.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that he would not go into the detail of the factual position so cited by the learned counsel for the appellant and as that would be in the knowledge of learned Member, Board of Revenue himself or his office whether the posts of Head Clerks do exist any more in the offices of Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners but would say that the appellant's stay/experience in the Colony Branch was less than 3 years which was a prescribed condition for this purpose. He has vehemently opposed that his stay in the Colony work in Chplistan Development Authority, would hardly qualify him for this selection. He has defended the act of learned Member. Board of Revenue of selection of Nur Khan, Junior Clerk Thal, on the ground that the same was done after relaxation of rules.
7. After hearing the arguments of both the parties the case is sent to the learned Member (Rev.), Board of Revenue, with the direction to look into this point and see that no justice is done and verify the facts personally in the larger interest of injustice and fairplay. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.