Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupinder Singh vs Financial Commissioner Punjab And Ors on 24 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134
CWP No.14289 of 2018 -1- 2024:PHHC:056134
249
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.14289 of 2018
Date of Decision: 24.04.2024
Bhupinder Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate
for respondent No.4.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh as well as order dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide which Ld. Courts mentioned above had unnecessarily interfered in the well reasoned order dated 10.02.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned District Collector, Patiala in the matter relating to the appointment of Lambardar for the village Gurditpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala as the learned 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 21:17:44 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134 CWP No.14289 of 2018 -2- 2024:PHHC:056134 District Collector, Patiala while evaluating the merits and candidature of the respective parties had appointed the petitioner on the aforesaid post and there appeared to be no illegality, perversity or infirmity in the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Collector and therefore, order dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh are illegal, void and without jurisdiction, passed without application of mind and illegal and are liable to be set aside under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Further prayer has been made for staying the operation of impugned orders dated 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh.
2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that this is the second round of litigation between the parties. On the death of earlier Lambardar namely, Hari Singh, the post of lambardar in village Gurditpur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala fell vacant. Thus, the process for appointment of new lambardar was initiated in the village. On conducting the proclamation, applications were invited from the interested/eligible candidates. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner and respondent No.4 also applied for the same. On the evaluation of their inter se merits, the District Collector, Patiala appointed the petitioner, namely, Bhupinder Singh as lambardar of the village vide his order dated 02.07.2008. However, respondent No.4, namely, Manjit Singh filed an appeal before 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 21:17:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134 CWP No.14289 of 2018 -3- 2024:PHHC:056134 the learned Commissioner, who accepted the same and remanded the case for decision afresh to the Collector vide his order dated 04.07.2009. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Financial Commissioner. However the learned Financial Commissioner finding no merit in the same, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the parties to appear before the Collector on 18.01.2009 for further proceedings. Thus, the learned Collector conducted the fresh proceedings for re-hearing of the case. On the appreciation of merits of the petitioner, he was found to be 54 years of age and matric by qualification. Besides this, he owned 25 kanals of land. The petitioner also faced criminal prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 408 IPC. On the other hand, respondent No.4 was found to be 34 years of age and 10+2 by qualification. He had also done diploma from ITI. Besides this, he owned 23 kanals of land in the village. He never faced the criminal prosecution in any case. On the evaluation of inter se merits of both the candidates, the learned Collector again appointed the petitioner, namely, Bhupinder Singh as lambardar of the village vide his order dated 10.02.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned Commissioner, who heard both the sides and re-appreciated the evidence on record. He found the view taken by the learned Collector to be perverse and thus, set aside the same by accepting the appeal filed by respondent No.4 and appointed respondent No.4, namely, Manjit Singh as lambardar of the village vide his order dated 14.09.2011. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 21:17:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134 CWP No.14289 of 2018 -4- 2024:PHHC:056134 appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the learned Financial Commissioner. However on hearing both the sides, the learned Financial Commissioner found no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioner and thus, upheld the order passed by the learned Commissioner by dismissing the appeal vide his order dated 26.02.2018. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that on the evaluation of merits of both the candidates, it is apparent that the petitioner is a matured person and matric by qualification. He submits that the petitioner remained as Sarbrah lambardar of the village and the lower authorities have also recommended his name for the appointment of lambardar. He submits that filing of the case under Section 408 IPC had no bearing on his candidature. He has submitted that on finding the petitioner to be more meritorious, he was appointed by the Collector as lambardar of the village. He submits that as per the law settled, the order passed by the Collector cannot be interfered unless it suffers from any perversity. He submits that there being no perversity in the order passed by the Collector, the Court of learned Commissioner and that of the learned Financial Commissioner have fallen in error in setting aside the well reasoned order passed by the Collector, which is against the law settled. He thus submits that the impugned order being unsustainable in the eyes of law deserve to be set aside. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments passed by this Court in 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 21:17:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134 CWP No.14289 of 2018 -5- 2024:PHHC:056134 "Amarjit Kaur vs. Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab and others", 2011(3) RCR (Civil) 961 and "Rattan Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab and another", 2016(3) RCR(Civil)
653.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted that admittedly respondent No.4 was younger in age and being 12th pass was more qualified than the petitioner. He has submitted that respondent No.4 had an impeccable record as he faced no criminal prosecution in any case. However as evident the petitioner faced the criminal prosecution under Section 408 IPC. On this account, he was dismissed from service of the Cooperative Society where he was serving. He has submitted that the petitioner thus was disqualified for consideration for the post of lambardar, however the learned Collector miserably failed to appreciate the same and thus, the learned Commissioner had rightly set aside the perverse order passed by the Collector by appointing respondent No.4 as lambardar of the village, which was further rightly upheld by the learned Financial Commissioner. He has submitted that in the first round of litigation as well, the Collector had appointed the petitioner as lambardar of the village, which was set aside by the learned Commissioner by remanding the case to the Collector for decision afresh. However the learned Collector again illegally appointed the petitioner as lambardar of the village, which was duly rectified by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities by setting aside the same. He submits that as per the settled proposition of law held 5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 21:17:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134 CWP No.14289 of 2018 -6- 2024:PHHC:056134 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram, 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 757, a candidate who is younger in age should be given the preference, whereas the learned Collector has miserably failed to appreciate the same and thus, there being no perversity in the impugned orders passed, the present petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard.
6. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. As evident, this is the second round of litigation between both the sides. Though on appreciation of the merits and demerits of both the candidates, it is apparent that respondent No.4 was younger in age and more qualified than the petitioner. Besides this, he had a neat and clean record whereas the petitioner, who was an employee in the Cooperative Society, faced criminal prosecution under Section 408 IPC for the embezzlement and thus as evident from the record, was dismissed from the service. Even though as argued before this Court, he was acquitted by the trial Court which in itself does not give him an edge over respondent No.4, who was younger in age, more qualified and had an impeccable record. However, the learned Collector had failed to appreciate the same and thus, illegally appointed the petitioner twice as lambardar of the village.
7. There is no gainsaying that appointment of the lambardar is primarily the prerogative of the Collector whose opinion should not be interfered in a cavalier manner except there being the perversity or patent illegality. In view of the overwhelming evidence on record, the order 6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 21:17:45 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056134 CWP No.14289 of 2018 -7- 2024:PHHC:056134 passed by the Collector suffers from perversity and hence, the learned Commissioner had rightly set aside the same by appointing respondent No.4 as lambardar of the village. The learned Financial Commissioner also agreed with the same and thus, upheld the order passed by the learned Commissioner holding the order passed by the Collector to be perverse. As per the settled proposition of law held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Mahavir Singh Vs. Khiali Ram, 2009(1) RCR(Civil) 757, a candidate who is younger in age should be given the preference, whereas the learned Collector has miserably failed to appreciate the same.
8. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law held in the authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner but the same are distinguishable on the facts of the present case.
9. Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case and on the anvil of the law settled, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner. Thus, the present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 30-04-2024 21:17:45 :::