The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for setting aside the appointments of the respondents Nos.3 to 8 and sought appointment of the candidates, who were qualified on merits.
2. The relevant facts are that the respondent No.2 through an advertisement in the daily "Saadat" dated 29-4-1993 invited applications for appointment of Patwaris in Tehsil Nankana, District Sheikhupura. The candidates were directed to appear before the Recruitment Committee on 4-5- 1993. The case of the petitioner is that although he ranked senior with reference to the entry in Patwar Register, yet he was not appointed. It is added that the petitioner made repeated applications for appointment but all in vain. The respondents, have entered appearance and contested petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the applications were invited and the date of interview was notified in a dummy newspaper. Therefore, the petitioner and others could not know that the recruitment is being made. It is added that neither any test nor any interview was held, but the respondents Nos3 to 8 had been appointed on account of political influence. It is further added that the whole proceedings were fake. It is clear from the fact that although the respondents were allegedly interviewed on one date, yet the appointments had been made on different dates as is clear from Annexure "E" appended with C.M. No.2/93 and Annexure "F" with the petition.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the applications for appointment of Patwaris were invited through an advertisement in a newspaper approved by the Government and- as many as eleven candidates made applications, out of which six were appointed. The arguments are concluded with the submission that it is the petitioner who had earlier got appointment through political pressure and he did make an application and appeared before the Recruitment Committee but was not selected. Learned Additional Advocate-General, in this behalf, has referred to Annexure "C" with C.M. 2 of 1993.
5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos3 to 8 while subscribing to the arguments of the learned Additional Advocate-General submitted that in fact, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person.
Therefore, he cannot maintain the writ petition. The arguments are concluded with the submission that the whole proceedings were conducted openly in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the Constitutional petition.
6. I have given my anxious considerations to the argument of the learned counsel for the parties.
The respondent Not categorically stated that the petitioner did make an application and appear before the Recruitment Committee but this fact was denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, I confronted the petitioner with his application produced by the respondent No.2. The petitioner admitted his signatures on the same. The allegations that the petitioner did not come to know of the vacancies and everything was done secretly are falsified by this admission of the petitioner. A photo copy of the application of the petitioner has been placed on the record which is marked as C.I. It is established from the record that the petitioner not only made application but he was also interviewed by the Recruitment Committee as per Annexure "C". This misconduct is sufficient to refuse relief in writ.
7. Now coming to the argument that the petitioner was senior most as his name is entered at Serial No.96 of the Patwar Register. The learned Additional Advocate-General referred to the notification of the Board of Revenue dated 9-10-1989 according to which the mere mention of the name of a candidate in the Patwar Register does not make him senior for appointment but the selection of the Patwaris are to be made by the Collector according to the suitability of the candidate and the seniority of entry in the Patwar Register of candidates does not give any priority to the claim for appointment. The petitioner has placed nothing on the record to substantiate his argument that the respondents Nos.3 to 8 had exercised political influence to secure their appointments. Learned Additional Advocate-General had placed on record an earlier appointment letter of the petitioner to point out that the petitioner was appointed at the behest of the Minister in relaxation of ban on appointments as well as age of the petitioner.
8. Now coming to the last argument that the appointments of respondents Nos.3 to 8 made on different dates clearly proved that the whole proceedings were fake. The learned Additional Advocate-General explained that since the respondents Nos.4 to 7 as well as Muhammad Afzal, who is not a party to the writ petition, were over-aged. Therefore, they were asked to get their upper age relaxed. They applied to the Board of Revenue separately. The result was that the Board of Revenue issued relaxation orders on different dates. The appointment orders were issued as and when the orders for relaxation were received This explains why the appointments of the respondents Nos3 to 8 were made on different dates.
9. This Court had already observed that the petitioner has failed to implead all the appointees. The explanation of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Muhammad Afzal was appointed but was later on dismissed The respondent No.2 pointed out that the said Muhammad Afzal was re- instated subsequently. Therefore, he was a necessary party.
10. The appointments had been made by the Recruitment Committee under the rules. This Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Recruitment Committee. The petition is, therefore, without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs.