1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-The Commissioner, Multan Division, and the Board of Revenue, Punjab, seek special leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 18th of February 1972, m the matter of the candidature of the respondent, Mian Sher Muhammad, for the post of Naib-Tehsildar.
2. The respondent started service as a revenue Patwari in the year 1946 and was promoted to the post of Kanungo in 1960. In August 1967 he was selected as a Naib-Tehsildar candidate by the Commissioner, Multan Division. However, it was later discovered that the respondent did not qualify for the selection as he had not completed two years' service as a Field Kanungo, as required by clause 13(a)(ii) of rule 2 of the West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962. It appears that the Commissioner had recommended to the Provincial Board of Revenue that this requirement may be relaxed in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Provincial Government in this behalf under rule 13 of the Rules, but this recommendation was not accepted. As a result, the petitioner's name was directed to be removed from the list of Naib-Tehsildar candidates by an order passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, on the 10th October 1968.
3. The respondent, Sher Muhammad, challenged the correctness and legality of this order in the Lahore High Court by a petition under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution, contending that in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner had not completed two- years' service as a Field Kanungo, the learned Commissioner had omitted to take into consideration the evidence furnished by a certificate issued by the Consolidation Officer, Pakpattan, on the 15th October 1963. This certificate was to the effect that while posted as a Peshi Kanungo with the Consolidation Officer con--cerned from 1-9-62 to 15-10-63 the respondent had also worked as a Field Kanungo, particularly on the consolidation work of village Daya Ram etc. The Consolidation Officer expressed the view that this work should count as Settlement work. Includ--ing this period, the respondent contended, the total service rendered by him as Field Kanungo would amount to more than 27 months.
4. It was submitted before the High Court on behalf of the present petitioners that the service book of the official concerned did not show his posting as a Field Kanungo during the period covered by the certificate of the Consolidation Officer, Pakpattan, and therefore, it could not be said that he had completed the prescribed period of two years. However, the learned Judge accepted the position canvassed on behalf of the respondent and held that by ignoring the certificate issued by the Consolidation Officer, Pakpattan, the learned Commissioner, Multan Division, had wrongly come to the conclusion that the respondent was not qualified for selection as a Naib-Tehsildar candidate. On this view of the matter, the learned Judge further observed that a reference for the relaxation of the rules made to the Board of Revenue was unnecessary: The learned Judge, therefore, set aside the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, with the result that the respondent's name stood restored on the list of selectedNaib-Tehsildar candidates.
5. It is submitted by Mr. Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, the learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the High Court was not justified in investigating a disputed question of fact in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 98 of the former Constitution; and that, in any case, the learned Judge has misread the certificate issued by the Consolidation Officer, Pakpattan, in forming the opinion that during the entire period the respondent was rendering service as a Field Kanungo.
6. It is correct that ordinarily, the High Court is not entitled to investigate disputed questions of fact in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, but it is well settled, that a' finding of fact can be interfered with if it is based on no evidence, or a misreading of evidence, or ignoring of material evidence, or taking into consideration inadmissible evidence. It seems that in the present case the learned Judge formed the view that the Commis--sioner, Multan Division, had arrived at his finding regarding the ineligibility of the respondent by ignoring a material piece of evidence covering a period of more than 13 months. This would be a justifiable reason for interfering with the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner.
7. However, we find that the learned Judge bas himself misread the certificate in question. This document, which forms Annexure A to the present petition, clearly recites that Mr. Sher Muhammad was posted with the Consolidation Officer, Pakpattan, as his Peshi Kanungo with effect from 1-y-62 to 15-10-63, and that it was in addition to his Peshi work that he worked as a Consolidation Field Kanungo, completing the consolidation work of village Daya Ram etc. Successfully. The rest of the certificate is concerned with praising the hard work put in by the official. It will be seen that the basic appointment held by respondent Sher Muhammad was that of a Peshi Kanungo, and he worked as a Field Kanungo only in addition to his normal appointment, completing the consolidation work of one village Daya Ram successfully. The certificate certainly does not amount to saying that throughout this period the official was serving as a Field Kanungo. It is obvious that the major portion of his time must have been devoted to discharging the normal duties devolving upon a Peshi Kanungo. Such being the case this certificate was not evidence of the fact that the respondent bad worked as a Field Kanungo for a period of 13 months while posted under the Consolidation Officer, Pakpattan. The requirement as embodied in clause 13(a)(ii) mentioned `earlier is that out of a total service of five years the official must have served for at leas, two years on the duties of a Field Kanungo. Ordinarily, therefore, this requirement would be fulfilled only if the official concerned has been posted in the capacity of a Field `Kanungo for the prescribed period, and not merely because he is off and on discharging the duties of a Field Kanungo in addition to his normal duties as a Peshi Kanungo.
8. On our reading of the certificate in question, we are inclined to agree with the learned Assistant Advocate-General that the respondent had not put in the prescribed period of service as a Field Kanungo. Nevertheless, the question remains whether it is a fit case for the grant of special leave to appeal. We have already observed that the learned Commissioner was in favour of retaining the respondent on the list of selected Naib-Tehsildar candidates, presumably in view of the suitability of the respondent for the higher post, and it was for this reason that he recom--mended to the Board of Revenue that the Rule might be relaxed in the respondent's favour. Several years have passed since the respondent was first selected for this appointment, and since then he has been continuously in service as a Naib-Tehsildar and as a Field Kanungo. In these circumstances, we are reluctant to grant special leave to appeal after the lapse of so many year since the respondent was selected. The leave is, therefore, refused on this ground and the petition is dismissed.