Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harminder Singh vs Financial Commissioner(Appeals), ... on 24 April, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056097
CWP No.27324 of 2023 -1- 2024:PHHC:056097
113
THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.27324 of 2023
Date of Decision: 24.04.2024
Harminder Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
***
Present: Mr. Dharminder Singh Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
***
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order
dated 20.07.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1 being
illegal, wrong and arbitrary vide which appeal filed by respondent No.4
has been allowed by upholding the wrong, perverse and arbitrary order
dated 09.06.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3.
2. Adumbrated facts of the case are that on the death of earlier
Lambardar namely, Gurdev Singh of village Bangi Ruldu, Tehsil
Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda on 20.06.2012, the post of lambardar
in the village fell vacant and thus, the process for appointment of new
lambardar was initiated in the village. The mustri munadi was conducted
for inviting the applications from interested/eligible candidates. In
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056097
CWP No.27324 of 2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:056097
pursuance to the same, four applications were received including that of
the petitioner, namely, Harminder Singh and respondent No.4, namely,
Jaskaran Singh. Their character verifications were got conducted from
the concerned police station. On the appreciation of merits of the
petitioner, he was found to be 51 years of age and 10th class pass by
qualification. Besides this, he had done diploma in D.H.M.S. He owned
111 kanal 19 marlas of land. He was found to be son of the deceased
lambardar as well. On the other hand, respondent No.4 was found to be
42 years of age and 10th class pass by qualification. Besides this, he
owned 11 kanal 3 marlas of land. The lower Revenue Officers had
recommended the name of respondent No.4 i.e. Jaskaran Singh for
appointment of lambardar. On the evaluation of merits and demerits of all
the candidates, the learned Collector found respondent No.4, namely,
Jaskaran Singh to be most suitable candidate and thus appointed him as
lambardar of the village vide his order dated 09.06.2016. Being
aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and co-applicant, namely, Gurpreet
Singh assailed the same by way of filing their independent appeals before
the learned Commissioner. Both the appeals were heard together. On
hearing both the sides, the learned Commissioner accepted the appeals
filed by them by setting aside the order passed by the Collector and
remanded the case to the District Collector for decision afresh vide his
order dated 24.05.2017. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4
assailed the same by way of filing two cases bearing ROA No.48 of 2017
and ROR No.49 of 2017 before the learned Financial Commissioner.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056097
CWP No.27324 of 2023 -3- 2024:PHHC:056097
Both the cases were heard together by the learned Financial
Commissioner and on hearing, the learned Financial Commissioner
accepted both the cases filed by respondent No.4 and thus set aside the
order passed by the learned Commissioner. The learned Financial
Commissioner upheld the order passed by the learned Collector
appointing respondent No.4 as lambardar of the village. Hence, the
petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended
before this Court that on the appreciation of inter se merits of the
candidates in the fray, the petitioner was most meritorious candidate,
however the learned Collector failed to appreciate the same and thus
illegally appointed respondent No.4 as lambardar of the village. He has
submitted that the petitioner was not only matric pass but he had done
diploma in D.H.M.S. as well. Besides this, he was son of the deceased
lambardar and thus, had the experience of performing the duties as
lambardar as well. He has submitted that the learned Commissioner had
rightly set aside the perverse order passed by the Collector, however the
learned Financial Commissioner failed to appreciate the merits of the
petitioner and thus, illegally set aside the order passed by the learned
Commissioner. He has submitted that respondent No.3 has illegally
rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that he was
having residence at two places, which is totally misreading the evidence
on record. Thus, he submits that the impugned order being against the
evidence on record and the law settled, deserves to be set aside.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056097
CWP No.27324 of 2023 -4- 2024:PHHC:056097
4. Heard.
5. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record with his able assistance. As evident from the record
that on receiving the applications from the candidates, inter se merits of
all the candidates were duly appreciated. The name of respondent No.4
was recommended by all the Revenue Authorities to the Collector finding
him more suitable candidate for his appointment of lambardar. The
learned Collector on the evaluation of inter se merits of the candidates,
agreed with the same and thus, appointed respondent No.4, namely,
Jaskaran Singh as lambardar of the village. However, the learned
Commissioner in the appeal filed by the petitioner, set aside the order
passed by the learned Collector by remanding the case for decision
afresh. This order was assailed by respondent No.4 before the learned
Financial Commissioner. As evident from the record that respondent
No.4 is younger in age than the petitioner. So far as the hereditary claim
is concerned, the same has been held to be unconstitutional and thus, no
benefit of the same could be given to the petitioner as rightly observed by
the Courts below. Besides this, the Courts below have considered the
availability of the candidates in the village for discharging the duty of
lambardar. The petitioner was found to be a homeopathic working doctor
and residing in Mohali whereas the availability of respondent No.4 was
found to be feasible in the village.
6. On the other hand there is no gainsaying that the
appointment of the lambardar is the prerogative of the Collector, who
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056097
CWP No.27324 of 2023 -5- 2024:PHHC:056097
found respondent No.4 to be more suitable. The learned Commissioner
failed to appreciate the same, however the learned Financial
Commissioner has restored the same. 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.
7. On weighing the facts and circumstances of the case and on
the anvil of the law settled, this Court does not find any merit in the
present petition and thus, the same being devoid of any merit is hereby
dismissed.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
rittu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
