MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and 3 others
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the appointment of a Lambardar. The Tehsildar had recommended respondent No. 4, but the Collector appointed the appellant, Muhammad Yaqoob. Following unsuccessful appeals and a revision petition before revenue authorities, respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court allowed the petition, noting that the Collector had failed to properly compare the merits and demerits of the candidates, specifically regarding educational qualifications and criminal history, and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court should not have interfered in the appointment process. During the proceedings, it was highlighted that the appellant was involved in a triple murder case. Upon review, the Supreme Court determined that the circumstances did not warrant interference with the High Court's decision. Consequently, the Court withdrew the leave to appeal previously granted and dismissed the appeal, effectively upholding the High Court's order for a fresh determination of the appointment.
- Can the High Court interfere in the appointment of a Lambardar under its writ jurisdiction when the appointing authority fails to properly evaluate the merits of the candidates?
- Does the involvement of a candidate in a criminal case constitute a relevant factor for the appointing authority to consider in the selection of a Lambardar?
' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances.
1. On a vacancy arising for appointment for a Lambardar, applications were invited. Two persons applied. On 21-4-1984 the Tehsildar after discussing in detail the merits and demerits of all the candidates recommended Khushi Muhammad Alvi son of Haji Muhammad Boota respondent No,4 for appointment. However, the Collector vide order dated 21-10-1984 appointed the appellant Muhammad Yaqoob as a Lambardar. The respondent No,4's appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on 27-5-1985 and his revision petition by the Member, Board of Revenue on 15-12- 1986, so also his review application on 20-7-1987. He filed Writ Petition No, 5795 of 1987 in which it was urged inter alia that the Collector selecting the Lambardar did not properly compare the merits and demerits of the contestants i.e, the respondent No,4 and that of the appellant.
Everything was found in favour of the respondent except that he was an old man of 42. As regards the appellant, he was taken as having passed middle class examination whereas he had done up to Primary Class. Cases registered against him were noted but given no consideration. Vide a detailed order, a learned Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondent No,4 and remanded the case for fresh decision in accordance with law vide order dated 25-4-1990.
2. At the leave stage, it was contended that the learned High Court could not and should not have interfered in its writ jurisdiction in the appointment of a Lambardar. Reliance was placed on "Muhammad Younis v. Member, Board of Revenue" (1988 SCM R 447). Leave was granted on 3-9- 1990. He has reiterated the contention.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No,4 has contended that factually incorrect assumption was made about the educational qualification of the appellant and his involvement in crimes was ignored. The answering respondent was taken as an old man, though he was only 42. He also referred to the decision rendered on the leave granting order relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, reported as "Haji Noorwar Jan v. Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and 4 others" (PLD 1991 SC 531) wherein interference by the High Court in matter of appointment of a Lambardar was upheld. Finally, he pointed out that the appellant is involved in a tripple murder case registered vide F.I.R. No,464 at Police Station Jaranwala on 27-6-1991.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in all the circumstances of the case leave granting order dated 3rd September, 1990 is withdrawn with the result that the appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order 4s to costs.