Federal Constitutional Court Emphasizes Comparative Evaluation for Lambardar Appointments
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has underscored the necessity for revenue authorities to conduct a comparative evaluation when appointing lambardars. This directive comes after setting aside an earlier appointment and adhering to statutory requirements.
Competent revenue authorities are mandated to evaluate under Rule 17, identifying the most suitable candidate in terms of character, capacity, and local acceptability. The selection process is aimed at appointing someone who can effectively perform public functions related to land revenue collection, abiana, government dues, and maintaining coordination between administration and locals.
Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan authored a 17-page judgment that set aside the appointment of a lambardar following a petition by Shoukat Ali. The court declared Ali entitled to be appointed as lambardar for Chak No4/WB, Tehsil and District Vehari.
The FCC’s ruling noted that superior courts’ jurisdiction in lambardar appointments is primarily supervisory, enforceable within constitutional and legal parameters. Interference is justified only if the order is illegal, arbitrary, based on flawed evidence, violates statutory provisions, or shows a perverse assessment of merit and suitability.
Ordinarily, reappraisal or substitution of judicial views without demonstrably unsustainable law or facts is impermissible. However, this does not negate Article 4’s constitutional mandate guaranteeing individuals equal protection under the law, obligating state functionaries to act within lawful authority in a fair, non-arbitrary manner.