1. ' MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against a judgment dated 29-11-1995 delivered by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in Intra-Court Appeal No,196 of 1991.
2. ' Respondent No,4 Akhtar Hussain filed in the Lahore High Court Writ Petition No,7473 of 1990 challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kasur (respondent No,1) appointing the petitioners as Patwaris. Said order was sought to be declared as having been passed without lawful authority and being of no legal effect. Respondent No,1 was sought to be directed to appoint respondent No,4 as Patwari in accordance with the rules.
3. ' As per the Writ Petition, respondent No,4 was enlisted as Patwari candidate at serial No,150 of the register of Patwari candidates, after he passed Patwar Examination in the year 1984. Grievance of the respondent No,4 was that the petitioners were appointed as Patwaris without following the procedure and in utter disregard of the Notification No,SOR.III-1-16 of 1986 dated 17-2-1987 issued in pursuance of subrules (3) and (7) of Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1974. It was further alleged that in appointing the petitioners as Patwaris, the respondent No,1 had overlooked the Waiting List of successful candidates of the year 1984 and had appointed the petitioners from amongst the persons who passed Patwar Examination in 1987 and such action was challenged to be contrary to justice, equity and good conscience. The Writ Petition was heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court, who under his order dated 10-4-1991 dismissed the same, on the only ground that the respondent No,4 had no vested right of appointment as Patwari.
4. ' Respondent No,4 challenged dismissal of his Writ Petition in the same High Court under Intra- Court Appeal No,196 of 1991. Under the impugned judgment, a learned Division Bench accepted the appeal and declared appointment of the petitioners as Patwari without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Collector of the District was directed to proceed to make fresh appointments strictly in accordance with law. Hence this petition. Ch: Muhammad Aslam Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that para 3.11 of Land Record Manual had been deleted, under a notification dated 19-10-1989 issued by the Board of Revenue. It was also argued that under the impugned judgm' ent, learned D.B. Had not given a finding that name of respondent No,4 was entered in the register of Patwari candidates, earlier than the names of the petitioners were entered in it. Learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that the petitioners were appointed in February 1988, while para 3.11 was deleted in 1989.
5. ' Under the impugned judgment, learned D.B. Took view that appointment of the petitioners 2.s Patwari was not made on merits but on the orders passed by the Members of Provincial and National Assemblies who had no jurisdiction to give such direction, as such authority vested in the Collector. Learned D.B. Referred to Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service)
6. Rules, 1974 providing that the appointments to the posts in grades 1 to 15 were to be made by a Departmental Selection Committee and that by virtue of proviso to subrule (3) of Rule 4 and subrule (7) of Rule 4 ibid, the Government is also empowered to set up a Recruitment Advisory Committee to advise the Departmental Selection Committee in matters of appointment by initial recruitment. In their lengthy judgment now under challenge, learned D.B. Did not advert to the claim of the respondent No,4 that his name was entered in the register of Patwari candidates, earlier than the names of the petitioners. Learned D.B. Has not expressed any opinion about the respondent No,4 being senior to the petitioners in the said register.
7. In the circumstances, leave to appeal is granted to consider if name of the respondent No,4 was entered in the register of Patwari candidates earlier than entry of names of the petitioners in the same register; and secondly, whether relevant rules and regulations have been violated due to appointment of the petitioners, as Patwaris. Appeal to be heard on the present record at an early date.