' Facts of the case are that on the death of Sardar Muhammad Dogar the permanent Lambardar of Chak No,519/EB, Tehsil Burewala applications for appointment of a substitute having been invited, piecemeal applications were obtained from the candidates at various stages. Fifteen candidates including respondent Mansab Ali and Muhammad Ashiq son of Jamal Din (father of the present petitioner) having applied for the post, v4de his order, dated 12-2-2002 the DO(R) Vehari appointed respondent Mansab Ali against the post. The said Muhammad Ashiq having filed an appeal before the EDO(R) Vehari against the order of the DC(R), the case was entrusted by the Member Revenue to the EDO(R) Pakpattan Sharif. Muhammad Ashiq having died, after hearing his son Arshad Naeem the present petitioner and the other parties. Vide his order dated 21-5-2002 the EDO(R)
Pakpattan Sharif dismissed the said appeal with the observations that Mansab Ali had been rightly appointed by the DC(R) Vehari, the appeal had became infructuous due to the death of Muhammad Ashiq and Arshad Naeem had no heritable right. This order of the EDO(R) has been assailed in the present revision petition.
2. While respondent No,2 Shaukat Hussain Shah was not a necessary party and had been impleaded in the case without any justification, he did not turn up to contest the same. Therefore, arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent Mansab Ali were heard.
3. In their arguments, Messrs Muhammad Salim Chaudhary and Mian Muhammad Hanif Tahir Advocates the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly made the following assertions:---
(1) That the last date for making applications for the post having been fixed as 1-11-2001, respondent Mansab Ali made application afterwards. That he having no land in the relevant Patti was not eligible to apply for the post and in order to enable him to contend for the same through Mutation No,620 dated 22-11-2001, his father gifted 10 acres of land to him. That the Revenue Field Staff had recommended Muhammad Ashiq father of the petitioner for the post but this recommendation was ignored by the DO(R) without any justification.
(2) That, while notices to other candidates were issued by the DO(R) on 11-2-2002 he appointed the respondent on the next day i.e, 12-2-2002 without service of notices on the said candidates and without hearing them.
(3) That, while in application for the post respondent Mansab Ali had himself stated tht he was a Matriculate, the DO(R) dishonestly showed him to be F.A. That, Mansab Ali was defaulter of Government dues, Tawan had been levied on him for theft of Canal Water and a case of abduction had also been registered against him Therefore, he was not entitled for appointment against the post and the order of the DO(R)/ Collector was perverse.
(4) That, the EDO(R) had refused to implead the petitioner as a party in the appeal without any justification.
(5) That, respondent Mansab Ali having been unlawfully appointed by the DO(R) even if the claim of the petitioner for the post is not accepted, then exercising suo motu powers of Revision, appointment of respondent Mansab Ali may be cancelled.
4. In their arguments Messrs Muhammad Hasan and Ch. Ikram-ulHaq Advocate the learned counsel for respondent Mansab Ali asserted that 15 persons having applied for the post, only respondent Mansab Ali, Muhammad Ashiq and Shaukat Hussain contested and respondent Mansab Ali was rightly appointed by the DO(R). According to the learned counsel, both the two lowers Courts had decided in favour of Mansab Ali and the order of levy of Tawan against him had been set aside by the EDO(R) Vehari. The learned counsel submitted that Muhammad Ashiq having died during pendency of his appeal before the EDO(R), the petitioner having no heritable right his request for impleading him as a party in the said appeal had been rightly turned down by the EDO(R) and hence he could not agitate against the appointment of the respondent. The learned counsel added that the petitioner is a defaulter of Government dues and illicit cultivator of State land. With these assertions, the learned counsel pleaded for dismissal of the revision petition.
5. I have given due consideration to the contention of both the sides. From the examination of the order, dated 12-2-2002 of the DO(R) Vehari it has been found that the same was passed against the dictates of justice and fair-play. As reflected therein, 15 candidates having applied for the post and that too at various stages and 8 out of them having withdrawn, 7 candidates namely Muhammad Ashiq son of Jamal Din (father of the petitioner), respondent Mansab Ali, Nazir Ahmad, Sardar Muhammad, Dost Muhammad,, Gulzar Ahmad and Muhammad Ashiq son of Muhammad Sadiq remained in the field. However, without any justification, the DO(R) neither summoned Muhammad Ashiq son of Muhammad Sadiq, Sardar Muhammad, Dost Muhammad and Gulzar Ahmad nor heard them. On the other hand, in an arbitrarily manner he hsld that as a result of the proc eedings taken by the DO(R) only Nazir Ahmad, Mansab Ali, Muhammad Ashiq son of Jamal Din and Shaukat Hussain Shah had remained in the field. While Shaukat Hussain Shah had applied at some subsequent stage, without bothering to call the said Nazir Ahmad, the DO(R) arbitrarily dropped his candidature and having -considered the claims of only respondent Mansab Ali and Muhammad Ashiq son of Jamal Din (father of the present petitioner) arbitrarily appointed Mansab Ali against the post. The non-summoning by the DO(R) of the other candidates who had not withdrawn their candidatures and ignoring their claims without hearing them and without going into the merits of the same militated against the requirements of law and justice. The DO(R) did all this by giving twists and turns to the matter. His impugned order clearly makes out that he wanted to drop various candidates by hook or crook in order to favour respondent Mansab Ali who was appointed by him without any verification about his conduct.
6. Thus, the order, dated 12-2-2002 of the DO(R) being on the arbitrary, unlawful and unsustainable order, irrespective of the aspect whether the present petitioner has any locus standi in the matter or not, in exercise of powers vested under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act 1967, I set aside the said order and in the interest of justice remand the case to the DO(R) Vehari for fresh appointment against the post. For this purpose, he shall invite applications through proper publicity, shall hear all the candidates properly look into the merits of their claims and appoint the most suitable person as per criterion given in rule 17 of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968.
7. A copy of this order be sent to the District Officer (Revenue) Vehari for necessary action.