1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner was one of the two candidates for the appointment of Lambardar, but the authorities having compared the merits of the candidates appointed respondent No. 3 Taj Muhammad as the Lambardar.
2. The High Court had taken the view that the appointment of Lambardar was essentially an administrative measure and no claim to that office could be laid as of right. This view was based upon a decision of this Court in the case of Abdul Wahid v. The Member, Board of Revenue Punjab and another (1971 SCMR 719) While refusing leave to appeal we agreed with the view adopted by the High Court.
3. The only ground urged before us for review is based on ground No. (g) of the petition for special leave to appeal and it reads as follows :- "The observation of the learned Single Judge that the appointment of Lambardar is purely discretionary, it is submitted with utmost respect, is not consistent with the provisions of rule 19(i) read with sub-rule (ii), as has been explained in the foregoing paragraphs."
4. The petition is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.