Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagandeep Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals) ... on 3 July, 2024
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081942-DB
Neutral Citation No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(106) LPA-1305-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 03.07.2024
Gagandeep Singh ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Mohit Shukla, Advocate, for the appellant(s).
****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
1. Consideration in the present appeal, filed by the appellant who
was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the writ petition filed by Gurpreet Singh, is
to the judgment dated 07.05.2024 passed in CWP-10582-2024 by the Learned
Single Judge wherein while dismissing the same, fresh applications were
directed to be called to fill up the post of Lambardar.
2. The writ petitioner was aggrieved against the order of the
Financial Commissioner whereby the revision petition of the present appellant,
Gagandeep Singh was allowed and remand was ordered to the District
Collector, Patiala while setting aside the order dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-
2) passed by the Collector, Patiala and order dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-3)
passed by the District Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide which
Gurpreet Singh had been appointed to the post of Lambardar of Village
Malkana Pattia, Samana.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081942-DB
(106) LPA-1305-2024 (O&M) -2-
3. The reasoning which prevailed with the Financial Commissioner
was that Gurpreet Singh was employee of a company and therefore, he had
produced a false certificate and played fraud with the revenue authorities.
Therefore being an employee and having concealed that fact and not being
readily available in the village as a Lambardar, his candidature was rejected.
The Learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the
selected candidate, Gurpreet Singh, modified the order that on remand to the
Collector, fresh appointment would be made by conducting the fresh munadi
by inviting fresh applications and allowing more deserving candidates from
the village to file the applications. The Learned Single Judge also did not
interfere with the finding recorded by the Financial Commissioner regarding
the fact that the writ petitioner-Gurpreet Singh was a regular employee of the
company.
4. The appellant is thus aggrieved on the ground that the Learned
Single Judge has thrown open the post for consideration to other applicants
also as fresh applications have to be filed and fresh munadi is to be done. It is
thus his argument that the order of remand should have just been kept intact.
5. We have perused the file. It is to be noticed that at one stage
there were 13 candidates in contention and at the time of finalization of the
proceedings before the Collector, candidates had withdrawn in favour of the
present appellant and Sunil Kumar and Kundan Singh were marked absent for
non-appearance. Resultantly, only the present appellant and Gurpreet Singh
were left in the fray. The Collector had just considered the merits of Gurpreet
Singh while recording that he was an eligible candidate and also the son of the
deceased Lambardar. The comparison of the merits of the present appellant
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081942-DB
(106) LPA-1305-2024 (O&M) -3-
with Gurpreet Singh were also not done and the order is silent as to what was
the merit of the present appellant. The said order has not been interfered with
by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala though in the said order, it was
noticed for the first time in the merits that the present appellant is 31 years of
age and studied upto 12th class and had done one year Diploma in Computer
Application. Thus, apparently, the order passed by the Collector was perverse
to that extent.
6. The Learned Financial Commissioner had adversely commented
upon the selected candidate, Gurpreet Singh and he thus being left out of the
zone of consideration, the appellant would be the only person left to be
considered. This aspect has rightly been noticed by the Learned Single Judge
and corrected. If the argument of counsel for the appellant is to be accepted, in
the absence of any other competition, he would automatically be entitled for
selection, which would not be appropriate. The reasoning is that deserving
candidate from the village should be given opportunity and 3 applications each
had been withdrawn in favour of the respective candidate and therefore, the
Collector never inter-se discussed the merits of both the candidates. It is not
for this Court to substitute or appoint the present appellant solely on the
ground that the writ petitioner was illegally appointed as the said order was
suffering from perversity. However, the appellant cannot be permitted to have
a walk over as contended by his counsel and he will necessarily have to file his
application in pursuance of the fresh publication to be issued in pursuance of
the order of the Learned Single Judge so that the best candidate from the
village is selected after considering the merits of all.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:081942-DB
(106) LPA-1305-2024 (O&M) -4-
7. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and
the same is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that since the post is now
vacant, the Collector shall expedite the process of selection and make efforts
to complete it within 3 months from the date of publication. All pending
application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(VIKAS BAHL)
03.07.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
