SHAUKAT ALI And Another vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI And 2 Other
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the dismissal of the petitioners' writ petition by the High Court arising out of a Lambardari appointment matter. The core legal question is whether the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court is attracted against the creation of an additional Lambardari vacancy and the subsequent appointment made thereon. The Supreme Court held that the creation of an additional Lambardari vacancy is a matter of practical need and administrative requirement, of which the concerned authorities are the best judges, and where full justification exists according to the rules, the High Court rightly refuses relief in its writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that administrative decisions regarding the creation of Lambardari vacancies and appointments, made in accordance with applicable rules and practical needs, are not amenable to interference under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
- Whether the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is attracted in a Lambardari appointment matter?
- Are the concerned authorities the best judges for determining the practical need and requirements for creating an additional Lambardari vacancy?
- Can the High Court interfere with the creation of an additional Lambardari vacancy when full justification is shown on the touchstone of the rules?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFAZL ZULLAH, J: --This is petition for leave to appeal; against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Writ Petition which had arisen out of a Lambardari matter.
2. The learned counsel conscious of several decisions of this Court and other superior Courts, to the effect that Writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not attracted in such like matters, contended that this case is distinguishable. He tried to argue that the appointment of respondent No.1 as Lambardar is without lawful authority; because, it is against an additional vacancy which was illegally created by the respondents authorities.
3. We do not agree with` the learned counsel. The creation of additional Lambardari is also a question of practical need and other requirements of which the authorities concerned are the best judges.
4. In this case they having shown full justification even on the touchstone of the guidelines laid down in the rules; the High Court rightly refused to give relief to the petitioners in its writ jurisdiction. For all these reasons, leave to appeal is refused.