Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satpal vs Ld. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) ... on 8 July, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia, Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
LPA-1507-2024(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
LPA-1507-2024(O&M)
Date of decision : 08.07.2024
Satpal Singh
... Appellant
Versus
Ld. Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr.Saurav Khurana, Addl.A.G. Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.
1. Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the
judgment dated 17.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP-
5517-2018 vide which while remanding the case to the Collector, it has
been observed that the Collector would initiate the process for appointment
of new SC Lambardar by inviting fresh applications and till the time the
fresh decision is taken, the present appellant-petitioner, who is working as
scheduled caste Lambardar, would continue to work on the said post.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the Commissioner,
Patiala Division vide memo no.MS/4948 dated 22.08.2013 had ordered for
1 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
the creation of the post of scheduled caste Lambardar in village Mehon and
thereafter the office of the District Collector, Patiala vide order dated
13.09.2013 had given sanction for filling the above mentioned vacant post
of Lambardar. The mushtri munadi in the village was conducted for inviting
the applications of the interested candidates for the said post and as many as
10 persons including the petitioner and Jagwinder Singh had applied for the
said post. Most of the applicants withdrew their applications and ultimately
only the present appellant Satpal Singh and Jagwinder Singh were left in the
fray.
3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala, vide its report dated
12.09.2014 had recommended the candidature of the present appellant for
the said post. The Collector vide order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-1),
after taking into consideration the merits and demerits of both the
candidates, appointed the present appellant as Lambardar to the post in
question. A perusal of the order dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) would
show that the arguments raised by the present appellant to the effect that he
was 34 years of age as compared to Jagwinder Singh, who was 44 years of
age and also to the effect that the said Jagwinder Singh was working as a
doctor (RMP) at Bhai Ghanhiya Lal Medical Hall at Devigarh and was
present for most of the time at the shop / clinic and as such was not
available in the village, was noticed. The Collector had further observed
that the aspect of the absence of said Jagwinder Singh from the village on
account of the above was fortified from the fact that the Sub Divisional
Magistrate had stated in his report that after conducting secret inquiry, it
2 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
had been found that the said Jagwinder Singh was working as a doctor at
Devigarh.
4. The said Jagwinder Singh filed an appeal before the
Commissioner and the Commissioner vide order dated 26.05.2016
dismissed the said appeal. A perusal of the said order would show that the
Commissioner had taken into consideration the fact that the present
appellant was a permanent resident of the village and was 34 years of age
and was also a social worker who took active part in the welfare of the
village and did not take part in any political activity nor belonged to any
political party and his name had also been recommended by the Naib
Tehsildar as well as by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, whereas on the other
hand, the said Jagwinder Singh was doing medical practice at Devigarh and
remained absent from the village. It was further observed that it was a
matter of settled law that the choice of the Collector should not be disturbed
unless and until it suffers from perversity or patent discrepancy. The said
Jagwinder Singh filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner
and the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 19.02.2018 allowed the
said revision petition on surmises and conjectures and set aside the order
dated 26.05.2016 and 24.11.2015 and remanded the case to the Collector,
Patiala, to reconsider the merits and demerits of both the candidates i.e., the
present appellant and Jagwinder Singh after affording an opportunity of
being heard to them.
5. The present appellant filed CWP-5517-2018 challenging the
order of the Financial Commissioner and the case came up for hearing
3 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
before the learned Single Judge on 08.03.2018, on which date the learned
Single Judge was pleased to pass the following order:-
"Present : Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
after considering the respective merit of all the candidates, the order
passed by the authorities below upto the level of Commissioner has been
set aside by the Financial Commissioner without considering the findings
recorded by the authorities below and case has been remanded.
Notice of motion for 13.07.2018.
Meanwhile, operation of impugned order dated 19.02.2018
(Annexure P-3) shall remain stayed till next date of hearing.
08.03.2018"
Thus, the operation of the order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure P-
3) was stayed and the appellant continued to work as Lambardar. Thereafter
the respondent no.4 died and objection was raised on behalf of learned
counsel for respondent no.4 that the present petition has been rendered
infructuous. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 03.12.2018 rejected
the said objection and the interim order was made to continue. The said
order dated 03.12.2018 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Present: Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Kanica Sachdeva, AAG, Punjab
for respondents No.1 to 3.
-*-
Mr. M.S. Dhami, Advocate, states that Jagwinder Singh son
of Ramesh Singh - respondent No.4 has since expired and therefore, the
present writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
This contention cannot be accepted in the light of the fact
that the petitioner was initially appointed by the District Collector and
thereafter, the said appointment was upheld by the Commissioner,
Patiala, which, when challenged by respondent No.4, had led to the
4 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
passing of the impugned order dated 19.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) setting
aside the said appointment order.
Adjourned to 15.03.2019 for consideration.
Interim order to continue till further orders.
December 03, 2018"
6. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.05.2024 instead
of setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner as the order of the
Financial Commissioner was illegal and also in view of the subsequent
development of respondent no.4 having died, disposed of the writ petition in
the terms which have been mentioned in para 1 of the present order.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order
of the learned Single Judge dated 17.05.2024 as well as the order of the
Financial Commissioner dated 19.02.2018 deserve to be set aside on the
following grounds:-
i) The Collector, who is the appointing authority, had, after
considering the merits of both the candidates i.e., Satpal and
Jagwinder Singh, appointed the present appellant as
Lambardar. The said order was upheld by the Commissioner
but was set aside by the Financial Commissioner in violation
of settled law to the effect that the choice of the Collector is not
to be interfered with unless the same is perverse, which was not
the case in the present case.
ii) It is submitted that once respondent no.4 had died and
the present appellant had continued to discharge his duties as
Lambardar in pursuance of the order of the Collector dated
5 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
24.11.2015 and there was nothing on record to show that there
was anything against him, then, the appointment of the present
appellant should have been upheld as no one was opposing his
candidature.
iii) It is submitted that in pursuance of the impugned
judgments/ orders, the process which had started in the year
2013-14 has been set at naught without there being any
observation that the present appellant who had been appointed
by the Collector suffered from any demerit much less
disqualification.
iv) It is submitted that the process was in accordance with
law and due mushtri munadi in the village was conducted and
10 persons had applied and ultimately the present appellant and
Jagwinder Singh remained in the fray and it was nobody's case
that any other person, desirous of being appointed as
Lambardar was not permitted to apply or was not considered.
v) It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram & others reported as
2009(3) SCC 439 had observed that age of the candidates is a
very relevant factor for appointment of Lambardar. The
relevant portion of the said judgment which has been
highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"14. It is now a well-settled principle of law, keeping in
6 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
view the decisions in regard to the appointment of
Lambardar in the State of Punjab, that age of a candidate
is a relevant factor."
It is submitted that the present appellant is younger in age than
the said Jagwinder Singh and thus, the law laid down in the
above said judgment furthers the case of the present appellant
and the said fact as well as all other relevant factors had been
considered by the Collector in appointing the present appellant
as Lambardar.
8. Learned State counsel has submitted that in the present case, he
represents respondents no.1 to 3 who are quasi-judicial authorities, who
have passed the orders and Jagwinder Singh, who was the sole contesting
respondent, has died.
9. We have considered the matter at length and have perused the
paper book and are of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 17.05.2024 as well as the order of the Financial Commissioner dated
19.02.2018 (Annexure P-3) deserve to be set aside and the order of the
Collector dated 24.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) and order of the Commissioner
dated 25.05.2016 (Annexure P-2) being in accordance with law, deserve to
be upheld for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow.
10. It is not in dispute that the Collector vide order dated
24.11.2015 (Annexure P-1) after considering the merits and demerits of the
present appellant and Jagwinder Singh had appointed the present appellant
as scheduled caste Lambardar of village Mehon. The said order had taken
into consideration the fact that mushtri munadi was duly conducted and in
7 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
pursuance of the same, 10 persons had applied including the present
appellant and Jagwinder Singh. It also took into consideration the fact that
the present appellant was recommended by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Patiala for being appointed as Lambardar and was 34 years of age as
compared to Jagwinder Singh being 44 years of age and also the fact that
the present appellant remained present in the village whereas as per the
report of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Patiala, it had been found that the
said Jagwinder Singh was working as a doctor (RMP) at Bhai Ghanhiya Lal
Medical Hall at Devigarh and most of the time remained present at the
Clinic and thus, remained absent from the village.
11. It is a matter of settled law that the Collector is the appointing
authority in the case of a Lambardar and the Commissioner or the Financial
Commissioner should not interfere in the order of the Collector unless the
said order of the Collector was found to be perverse. It is not for the
Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner to reconsider the merits of the
candidates or to interfere with the choice of the Collector even if two views
are possible. On the said aspect, reference can be made to the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in CWP-19720-2001 decided on
18.12.2001 titled as "Sarwan Kumar vs. The Financial Commissioner
Appeals-I, Punjab" reported as 2002(2) RCR (Civil) 520 as well as the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-107-2023 titled as
"Sukhpal Singh vs. State of Punjab and others" decided on 06.02.2023 as
also to the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA-291-2013 titled as
"Balwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others", decided on 23.04.2013.
8 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
12. The Commissioner, keeping in view the above principles had
rightly upheld the order of the Collector vide order dated 25.05.2016
(Annexure P-2). However, learned Financial Commissioner in violation of
the said principles of law and without finding any demerit in the present
appellant, set aside the order of the Collector and the Commissioner and
remanded the matter to the Collector to reconsider the merits and demerits
of both the candidates i.e, the present appellant and Jagwinder Singh. As
has been stated hereinabove, it had been brought to the notice of learned
Single Judge that respondent no.4 had died and thus, at that stage, the order
of the Financial Commissioner should have been set aside as apart from the
same being illegal and not in accordance with settled law, the question of
considering the merits and demerits of respondent no.4, vis-a-vis the
appellant did not survive as respondent no.4 had died. The learned Single
Judge instead of setting aside the order of the Financial Commissioner,
further remanded the matter to the Collector for inviting fresh applications
and for initiating the process of appointment of new scheduled caste
Lambardar, thereby setting at naught the process which had started in the
year 2013-14.
13. Once the eligible candidate i.e., the present appellant, who was
duly appointed by the Collector, was available and had been discharging the
duties for the last more than 8 years, without there being anything on record
to suggest any demerit or disqualification against him and without even
opining that there was any perversity in the order of the Collector or that of
the Commissioner, the direction given by the learned Single Judge, in our
9 of 10
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:084308-DB
opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case was uncalled for.
It is nobody's case that any other eligible applicant was not permitted to
apply or was not aware of the proceedings. A perusal of the order of the
Collector would show that in pursuance of the mushtri munadi, 10 persons
had applied. There was neither any infirmity in the procedures nor in the
orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner and Jagwinder Singh
had also died during the pendency of the writ petition and thus, in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, we are of the opinion that the orders
of the Collector and the Commissioner deserve to be upheld and the order of
the Financial Commissioner and that of the learned Single Judge deserve to
be set aside.
14. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the
present appeal is allowed and the orders of the Single Judge dated
17.05.2024 as well as the order passed by the Financial Commissioner dated
19.02.2018 are set aside and the order of the Collector appointing the
present appellant as scheduled caste Lambardar of village Mehon and the
order of the Commissioner dated 25.05.2016 are upheld.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) (VIKAS BAHL)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
July 08, 2024
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
10 of 10
