1. ' The petitioner has challenged the vires of. Order of the respondent, dated 20-3-2002 through this Constitutional petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Executive District Officer has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. He further submits that impugned order was passed by the respondent in violation of the mandatory provisions of Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. He further submits that impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same was passed in violation of the mandatory provisions of law for filling the posts in question. He further submits that impugned order is without lawful authority and is in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:--
(1) Muhammad Rashid v. Government of Azad Kashmir 1993 PLC (C.S.) 153, (2) Akhtar Hussian v. A.C.
2. 1996 PLC (C.S.) 943, (3) Munshi Safdar Ali v. A.C. 1998 SCMR 107, (4) Rao Abdul Rashid v. Federation of Pakistan 1993 PLC (C.S.) 419, (5) Airport Support Service v. Airport Manager 1998 SCMR 2268 and
(6) Dr. Zahir Ansar v. Karachi Development Authority PLD 2000 Kar.
3. 168.
2. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioners and perused the record myself. The petitioner alongwith Qudrat Ullah and 110 others filed Writ Petition No,22391 of 2002 which was disposed of by this Court vide order, dated 2-1-2001. A copy of the writ petition was sent to D.C.O. Respondent No,2 who was directed to look into the matter personally and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law within two months after receiving the order of this Court or to send the same to competent Authority for decision after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioners. The impugned order was passed after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner by the Executive District Officer on 20-3-2002. Since the petitioner had filed the earlier petition, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that Executive District Officer has no jurisdiction has no force on the well-known principle of approbate and reprobate as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ghulam Rasool's case PLD 1971 SC 376. The Executive District Officer Revenue passed the order after providing proper hearing to all the concerned in the following terms:-- "I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by Syed Khawar Muneer, Fayyaz Ahmad and their counsel. There are 69 posts of Patwaries in Saddar Sub-Division, Sheikhupura.
4. According to Government policy 2% posts i,e, one post of Patwari stood reserved for disabled persons. Syed Khawar Muneer and Fayyaz Ahmad have applied for appointment against said reserved post. Syed Khawar Muneer has passed his matriculation examination in 'D' grade whereas Fayyaz Ahmad passed his matriculation examination in 'C' grade. Fayyaz Ahmad has also passed certificate in Commerce Examination and Diploma in Commerce Examination. The contention of learned ocunsel for Syed Khawar Muneer for non-consideration of Fayyaz Ahmad while considering the request of Syed Khawar Muneer for appointment of Patwari against quota reserved for disabled persons is not convincing because the Lahore High Court, Lahore has directed to pass appropriate orders after hearing all concerned including petitioners in Writ Petition No,22391 of 2001.
5. The learned counsel for Syed Khawar Muneer has not produced any Government directive regarding preference of natural disable upon accidental disable person Fayyaz Ahmad possesses better and additional qualification than Syed Khawar Muneer and deserves for appointment as Patwari. Accordingly Fayyaz Ahmad son of Muhammad Ali is appointed as Patwari against the post reserved for disabled persons in Sub-Division, Sheikupura."
6. The aforesaid operative part clearly reveals that the impugned order was passed keeping in view all the circumstances after applying his independent mind. It is settled principle of law that this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of the finding of the Tribunal below as per principle laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Musaddaq's case PLD 1973 Lah.
600. It is also ' settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction -is a discretionary in character.
7. It is also settled principle of law that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. The petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands as the petitioner filed earlier writ petition on the basis of which the impugned order .Was passed with cogent reasons keeping in view the disability of respondent No,6 he was appointed in view of provisions of Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1981. Since substantial justice has been done between the parties in this view of the matter I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principle laid, down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Nawab Syed Ronaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 and Imtiaz Ahmad's case PLD 1963 SC 382. It is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances. The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition has no/ force and the same is dismissed.