Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh vs Ld. Financial Commissioner Punjab And ... on 22 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055800
CWP-1438-2020 -1- 2024:PHHC:055800
201 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-1438-2020
Date of Decision: 22.04.2024
Harjinder Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner and others ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr.Sunny K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Navneet Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
Mr. B.S. Seemar, Advocate for
respondent No.4.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J.
1. Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the impugned
order dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.1, order
dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 and order
dated 06.02.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3, vide which
respondent No.4 has been wrongly appointed as a Lambardar of the village
being illegal, arbitrary and are contrary to the settled proposition of law.
2. The present case pertains to the appointment of SC Lambardar
of village Jogimajra, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. Adumbrated facts of
the case are that on account of death of Inder Singh, earlier Lambardar of
the village on 01.01.2004, post of SC Lambardar fell vacant and thus,
process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated on 07.08.2012.
Mushtri Munadi was conducted in the village for inviting applications from
the interested and eligible candidates. In pursuance to the same, six
applications were received including the petitioner (Harjinder Singh) and
respondent No.4 (Lakhvir Singh). Their character verifications were got
conducted. On comparison of their inter-se merits Naib Tehsildar, Maloud,
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055800
CWP-1438-2020 -2- 2024:PHHC:055800
recommended the name of petitioner for the appointment of Harijan
Lambardar and forwarded to the same to the SDM, Payal. Agreeing with the
same, learned SDM, Payal also recommended the name of the petitioner for
the appointment of Lambardar. On appreciation of their inter-se merits, it
was found as under:-
Name Harjinder Singh Lakhvir Singh
Age 32 years 42 years
Qualification BA, B.Ed + Computer BA
Course and training
certificate from Artificial
insemination
Hereditary claim Grand son of deceased Nil
Lambardar
Recommendation Naib Tehsildar, SDM Nil
3. Learned Collector on evaluation of the inter-se merits and
demerits of both the candidates, finding respondent No.4 to be more
meritorious candidate appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide order
dated 06.02.2014 (Annexure P-3). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner
filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. Learned
Divisional Commissioner after hearing both the sides found no infirmity in
the order passed by the learned Collector and thus, dismissed the appeal
vide his order dated 30.09.2015 (Annexure P-4). Again aggrieved by the
same, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab
Land Revenue Act, 1887 before the Financial Commissioner. Both the
parties were heard by the Revisional authority, however, finding no
infirmity in the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner,
dismissed the revision petition vide his order dated 28.03.2019 (Annexure
P-5). Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by
way of filing the present petition.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055800
CWP-1438-2020 -3- 2024:PHHC:055800
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
that on the perusal of the inter-se merits of both the petitioner and
respondent No.4, it is evident that the petitioner was younger in age than
respondent No.4. Besides this, he was more qualified as well than him. He
submits that this is an admitted fact that respondent No.4 was convicted for
the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the
Court of JMIC, Malerkotla vide order dated 09.02.2015. He submits that
though he was later on acquitted on the basis of the compromise on
18.01.2019, however, stigma still remains against him, especially when the
petitioner has never faced prosecution in any case. He has submitted that
besides this the petitioner is also a grandson of deceased Lambardar. He has
submitted that learned District Collector had rejected the merits of the
petitioner on the ground that he had given statement that he is working as
Teacher in Government Senior Secondary School, Bhogiwal, District
Sangrur, but the petitioner never gave any such statement. He has submitted
that on the basis of the information sought under RTI Act, it is amply clear
that the petitioner was never employed as a Teacher in Government Senior
Secondary School and thus, the observation made by learned District
Collector is against the facts on record. He has submitted that Naib
Tehsildar and SDM both had recommended the name of the petitioner for
the appointment of Lambardar finding him more meritorious, however,
ignoring the same, learned Collector appointed respondent No.4 as
Lambardar of the village, which is totally against the law settled. He has
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh vs.
Khiali Ram and others, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 757, wherein, it has been
held that for the appointment of Lambardar, age of the candidate is a
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055800
CWP-1438-2020 -4- 2024:PHHC:055800
relevant factor. He further submits that in view the overall facts and
circumstances of the present case and the law settled, the impugned orders
being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserve to the set aside.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He has
submitted that there was no much difference in the age and qualification of
both the petitioner and respondent No.4. He has submitted that it was
proved from the record that the petitioner was working as Teacher in
Government Senior Secondary School and thus, his availability in the
village for discharging the duties of Lambardar, was not feasible and hence,
respondent No.4 was rightly appointed as Lambardar of the village. It is
submitted that though respondent No.4 was convicted under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act, however, he was acquitted on 18.01.2019.
He submits that as per law settled, even if two views are possible, the view
taken by learned Collector cannot be interfered with. He has submitted that
respondent No.4 is working as a Lambardar of the village since the date of
his appointment. It is further submitted that there being no perversity in the
order passed by the Collector, which was rightly upheld by the Appellate
and Revisional authorities, the petition being devoid of any merit, deserves
to be dismissed.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
record with their able assistance, it is apparent that on the death of earlier
Lambardar, process for the appointment of new Lambardar was initiated in
the village and applications were invited from the interested and eligible
candidates. On receiving the application, inter-se merits of all the candidates
were considered. Naib Tehsildar and SDM recommended the name of the
petitioner on finding him more suitable and meritorious candidate among all
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055800
CWP-1438-2020 -5- 2024:PHHC:055800
the candidates in fray. However, learned Collector ignored the same and
appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. There is no
gainsaying that petitioner was younger in age than respondent No.4 and was
more qualified as well than him. It is also not under dispute that petitioner
had an impeccable record having not faced prosecution for any offence. On
the other hand, respondent No.4 was convicted under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, though he was acquitted lateron on the basis of
compromise. The observation made by learned Collector that the petitioner
was working as a Teacher and thus, his availability was not possible, is also
not under dispute. Even if it is established that the petitioner was working as
a Teacher, then also the same cannot a ground for his disqualification as per
statutory provisions.
7. As per law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahavir
Singh's case (supra), the candidate younger in age should given preference
for the appointment of Lambardar.
8. The Appellate and Revisional authorities have also failed to
appreciate the relevant evidence on record and the law settled. Thus, this
Court is of the opinion that merits of both the candidates need to be re-
considered in the light of the material on record and the law settled. The
Financial Commissioner in para No. 6 of its order dated 28.03.2019 has
mentioned regarding the plea taken by the petitioner against respondent
No.4 with regard to cheque bounce that it was a false case and respondent
No.4 was acquitted of charges vide judgment dated 18.01.2019 by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Hence, finding the impugned orders
unsustainable in the eyes of law, the same are set aside and the case is
remanded to learned Collector for decision afresh after hearing both the
sides and perusing the record, expeditiously preferably within a period of
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055800
CWP-1438-2020 -6- 2024:PHHC:055800
three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is being
clarified that respondent No.4 who is stated to be working as Lambardar of
the village as on date, would continue to work as Lambardar till the fresh
order is passed by the Collector.
9. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Collector
concerned forthwith, who on receipt of the same would issue notice to the
parties for appearance and proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
10. The petition stands disposed of.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
22.04.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
