' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 15-6-2001 whereby Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Facts briefly are that the petitioners Nos.1 and 2 filed their nomination papers to contest election of Nazim and Naib-Nazim, respectively for Union Council Khairpur No,31, Tehsil and District Chakwal.
During the course of scrutiny, an objection was raised that the petitioner No,2 Nazim Hussain, candidate for the seat of Naib-Nazim being an employee of the Islamabad Electricity Supply Company (IESCO) was disqualified to contest elections, in view of prohibitory clause of section 14(g) of the Punjab Local Government Elections Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred as Ordinance). The Returning Officer, vide his order dated 7-6-2001 upheld the objection and rejected the nomination paper of petitioner No,2. According to averment in the Constitutional petition before the High Court, an appeal could not be filed before Election Appellate Authority because of paucity of time as such the petitioners filed a Constitutional petition bearing No,2064 of 2001. A learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, vide impugned order dated 15-6-2001 upheld the objection and rejected the Constitutional petition. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. We have noticed that the petitioner No,2 Nazim Hussain has not denied his job with the Islamabad Electric Supply Company (IESCO). He however has stated that this Company does not fall within the provision of section 14(g) of the Ordinance. It is also reflected from the file that the petitioner is a bill distributor and his services are regulated by WAPDA Rules and Regulations. It is clearly apparent from his letter of appointment that he was appointed as bill distributor on contract basis under Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority on 29-3-2000. Section 14(g) of the Ordinance has not made any distinction between the regular or the employee of other category. It would be apt to reproduce Section 14(g) of the Ordinance which is in the following terms:--
14. Qualification for candidates and elected members.---A person shall qualify to be elected or to hold an elective officer or member of a local Government if he,---
(g) is not in the service of the Federal, a Provincial or a local Government or, any statutory body or a body which is controlled by any such Government or, in which any of such Government has a controlling share or interest, except the holders of elected public office and part-time officials remunerated either by salary or fee; provided that in case of a person who has resigned or retired from such service, a period of not less than six months has elapsed his retirement;
4. Its reading brings us to an irresistible conclusion that the Legislature in its own wisdom has not, excluded employees on contract basis from the purview of this section. It is pertinent to mention here that learned counsel appearing for the caveator, during the course of proceedings has placed on record a certificate issued by the Divisional Manager (E), IESCO, WAPDA from which it is reflected that the petitioner No,2 Nazim Hussain is stilt an employee of the Company who has been paid salary up to 31-5-2001.
5. In view of this disqualification, no illegality has been committed by the Returning Officer in rejecting nomination paper of Nazim Hussain petitioner No,2 and said determination has rightly been approved by the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court in the exercise of his Constitutional jurisdiction.
6. The other aspect of the case that in view of proviso to Rule 18(c) of the Ordinance, the nomination paper of petitioner No,1 also stands rejected. The proviso is as under:-- ' "Provided that in case of rejection of the nominations of either a Nazim or a Naib-Nazim as joint candidates, the nomination as a whole for both the joint candidates shall stand rejected."
7. Faced with this situation, learned counsel has not only challenged the vires of the aforesaid rules but in the alternative, he has prayed that since the nomination paper of petitioner No,2 Nazim Hussain had been rejected as such petitioner No,1 Peer Waqar Hussain Shah be allowed time to submit fresh nomination paper for another Naib-Nazim, We are sorry to hold that this ground has been raised for the first time before this Court. Even otherwise the stage is set now for holding of the Elections as the list of validly nominated candidates had already been published.
In the above circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the determination of the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court. Resultantly, petition fails, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.