ISLAMABAD – The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has ruled that revenue authorities must conduct a comparative evaluation of all candidates before appointing a lambardar, setting aside a previous appointment for failing to meet statutory requirements under Rule 17.
In a detailed 17-page judgment authored by FCC Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan who led the division bench, the court underscored that the selection process must be transparent and merit-based, aimed at identifying the most suitable individual for a role that carries significant public responsibilities.
“The competent revenue authorities are, therefore, required to undertake a comparative evaluation under Rule 17 for the purpose of identifying the most suitable candidate who is best equipped, in terms of character, capacity, and local acceptability, to discharge the duties attached to the office, including those contemplated under Rule 22 ibid,” the judgment stated.
The court emphasized that the office of lambardar is not merely a customary or honorary position but carries key public functions. These include the collection of land revenue, abiana (water charges), and other government dues, as well as maintaining effective coordination between the administration and local inhabitants.
“The entire selection process is thus oriented towards the appointment of a person in whom the State can repose confidence for the effective performance of public functions,” the ruling read. The judgment effectively nullified the impugned appointment and directed the revenue authorities to restart the selection process in compliance with the statutory comparative evaluation framework.
The FCC Chief Justice led the division that set aside the appointment of a lambardar after accepting the petition filed by Shoukat Ali. The court declared that the petitioner is entitled to appointment as lambardar of Chak No4/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari.
The judgment noted that the jurisdiction of superior courts in matters relating to the appointment of a lambardar is essentially supervisory in nature and is exercisable within well-defined constitutional and legal parameters.
It added, “Interference is warranted only where the impugned order suffers from illegality, arbitrariness, misreading or non-reading of material evidence, violation of the governing statutory provisions, or perversity in the assessment of comparative merit and suitability.”
It stated that ordinarily, reappraisal of evidence or substitution of judicial view in matters involving comparative evaluation of candidates is impermissible unless the conclusions recorded are demonstrably unsustainable in law or facts.
However, it said, such restraint does not operate in derogation of the constitutional mandate enshrined under Article 4 of the Constitution which guarantees individuals the right to be dealt with in accordance with law and to enjoy equal protection of law.
“Thereby obligating all state functionaries, including revenue authorities, to act strictly within the confines of lawful authority and in a fair, non-arbitrary, and reasoned manner,” the judgment stated.
