The respondent-Administrator has entered appearance in person and is also assisted by his learne counsel. He has placed on record parawise comments. His personal appearance was directed to explain as to how .he could pass the two contradictory orders dated 6-11-1997 (Annexure 'H') and 31-3-1998 (Annexure 'K') by stating that this was in compliance with the orders of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No,24273 of 1997.
2. The petitioner and respondent No,3 are both employees of respondent-Zila Council. The petitioner is in BPS-11 while the respondent is junior to the petitioner and is in BPS-7. On 26-7-1997, the respondent No,3 was appointed as Head Clerk in his own pay and scale. On representation of the petitioner, this order was cancelled on 8-8-1997. On 9-8-1997, National Industrial Relation Commission, on a petition of respondent No,3, suspended the order dated 8-8-1997. In view of this suspension, on 20-10-1997 the petitioner was asked to hand over the charge of the post of Head Clerk to respondent No,3. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No,24273 of 1997 impugning the order of National Industrial Relation Commission and this Court while entertaining the petition suspended the order of the National Industrial Relation Commission. As a result, respondent-Administrator withdrew the order dated 20-10-1997. Once the order dated 20-7-1997 disappeared, the petitioner on 26-2-1998 withdrew the writ petition. After withdrawal, the respondent-Administrator again restored the order dated 26-7-1997, Annexure 'K' "in compliance with the order passed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26-2-1998". It is this order which is subjected to challenge.
3. As noted, the respondent appeared personally to explain as to in compliance of which order of the High Court he has passed the impugned order. In the course of hearing, the respondent admitted that the use of expression "in compliance" is inappropriate and what he actually wanted to say was as a result of the order of the High Court or something like that. I am satisfied that there is no attempt on the part of the respondent No,1 to use or misuse any order passed by this Court for passing the impugned order.
4. Essentially the petitioner is aggrieved against the appointment of respondent No,3 as Head Clerk and the ground of attack is that under Rule 3 of the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Service) Rules, 1997, a member of the service is liable to be transferred to a post in the same grade or pay scale. It is also contended that the appointment of respondent No,3 has taken place under the influence of one Abdul Rehman Gujjar, M.P.A. I need not proceed to adjudicate the validity of the appointment inasmuch as respondent No,1 indicated that he will take steps in accordance with Rule 3 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Apparently, this satisfies the petitioner.
5. I also find that under section 166 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 read with the releva-t rules, the order of Zila Council/Administrator is appealable before the Commissioner. In the event the petitioner's grievance is not redressed, the petitioner may resort to the alternative remedy.