MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-V) BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, which upheld the appointment of a Lamberdar. The core legal question was whether the appointment of the respondent was based solely on the 'Rule of Primogeniture'—which has been declared contrary to Islamic Injunctions—and whether the petitioner, claiming superior qualifications, was unjustly overlooked. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the revenue authorities had concurrently determined the respondent to be the most suitable candidate based on a comparative assessment of qualifications. The Court clarified that while the Rule of Primogeniture is invalid, a hereditary claim remains a valid factor for consideration under the existing statutory framework. The Court held that hereditary claims and the Rule of Primogeniture are distinct concepts; the former remains a legitimate merit-based factor for appointment under the relevant rules, whereas the latter is not. Consequently, the concurrent findings of the revenue hierarchy regarding the respondent's suitability were upheld, as no material disqualification was established by the petitioner.
- Is a hereditary claim for the position of Lamberdar legally distinct from the Rule of Primogeniture?
- Can a hereditary claim still be considered as a qualifying merit for the appointment of a Lamberdar under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules 1968?
- Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of revenue authorities regarding the suitability of a candidate for the post of Lamberdar?
- Rule 17, West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules 1968
- Rule 19, West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules 1968
ORDER
' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.---Through this writ petition an order, dated 4-2-2006, passed by the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue in ROR No,1893 of 2004 (Muhammad Saleem v. Tahir Mehmood) has been challenged.
2. Facts in brief are that Allaha Ditta son of Abdul Aziz, resident of Chak No,117/DB, Tehsil Yazman, who was a permanent Lamberdar of that Chak had expired. To fill in the vacancy, District Officer (Revenue), had invited applications which were filed by the petitioner as well as by Tahir Mehmood, respondent No,5, District Officer (Revenue) appointed Tahir Mehmood, being son of deceased Lamberdar. An appeal was filed by the present writ petitioner before Executive District Officer (Revenue, which was dismissed on 14-7-2004. Revision filed before learned Member Board of Revenue, was also dismissed, hence this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Tahir Mahinood, respondent No,5, has been appointed as Lamberdar only on the basis of Rule of Primogeniture and the petitioner has got more qualification than the aforesaid Tahir Mehmood. Learned counsel referred to PLD 1999 SC 484 (Ali Ahmad Wasik v. Government of the Punjab) and has stated that Rule of Primogeniture has been declared against Injunction of Islam, therefore, appointment made on the basis of this Rule was illegal and unlawful.
4. After considering the arguments of learned counsel and from the perusal of the record. 1 have reached to the conclusion that all the officials of Revenue hierarchy have considered the qualifications of both these candidates and after comparing the qualifications, they had found Tahir Mehmood, respondent No,5 as a fit and suitable candidate for the post of Lamberdar of Chak No,117/D.B. Yazman. The concurrent finding given by the Revenue Authorities against the petitioner cannot be upset in this jurisdiction, particularly, when no materialdisqualification has been pointed out by the petitioner. As regards the arguments of learned counsel that on the basis of Rule of primogeniture, respondent No,5 has been appointed is not borne out from the record. All the Revenue officials have founded appointment of respondent No,5 merely on the basis of grounds enumerated in Rules 17 and 19 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968. Hereditary claim of respondent No,5 could not be considered to have been washed away from Rule 17 and it cannot be ignored completely as it is still part of statutory rule. Hereditary claim and claim upon rule of primogeniture are two different claims, having different effects. Heredity claim is still one of the qualifying merits and it can work out as ground for the appointment besides other grounds for the appointment of present open post of Lamberdar. Therefore, instant writ petition has no force and is dismissed in limine.