1. ORDERIHSAN^UL-HAQ CHUDHARY, J. - The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has prayed for setting aside the appointments of the respondents No.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 on4.5.1993. The case of the petitioners is that although he ranked senior with reference to the ently 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 the petitionpetition. The arguments are eoncludcd with the submission that the whole proceedings were conducted openly in accordance with law.
2. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the Constitutional petition.f>. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent No.2 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.
3. 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.1. It is established from the record that the petitioner not only made application but he- was also interviewed by the Recruitment Committee as per Annex-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. % of the Patwar Register. The learned Additional Advocate General referred to the notification of the Board of Revenue dated 9.103989 according to which the mere mention of the name of a candidate in the Patwar Register docs 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 c|ajm for appointment. The petitioner has placed nothing on the record to substantiate his argument that the respondents No.3 to 8 had exercised political influence to secure (heir appointments. Learned Additional Advocate General .Has 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 No. 3 to 8 made on different dates clearly proved that the whole proceedings were fake. The learned Addl. Advocate General explained that since the respondents No. 4 to 7 as well as Muhammad Afzal, who is not a parly 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 order for relaxation were received. This explains why the appointments of the respondents No.3 to 8 were made on different dates.[1] iii The arrears, whatever may be determined amongst us, at the time of our last transaction in 1964 shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 1.0 lac per year. The first yearly installment of Rs.1.0 lac will be paid in the month of February, 1973.Iii I No interest whatsoever, shall be charged on the amount held payable throughout the entire period of repayment,