Gurvinder Singh vs Deputy Commissioner, District Patiala ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16109 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurvinder Singh vs Deputy Commissioner, District Patiala ... on 3 September, 2024

Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta

                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114864-DB




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
(115)                           LPA-2101-2024 (O&M)
                                Decided on : 03.09.2024

Gurvinder Singh                                            ......Appellant(s)
                                         Versus

Deputy Commissioner, District Patiala & others             ......Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
        HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:     Mr.Kunal Choksi, Advocate for the appellant (s).

             Ms.Arundhati Kulshreshtha, AAG, Punjab.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)

CM-4970-LPA-2024

1. Application for condoning the delay of 11 days in filing the

appeal is condoned in view of the averments made in the application, duly

supported by affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is

hereby condoned.

2. CM stands disposed of.

LPA-2101-2024

3. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated

17.07.2024, passed by the Learned Single Judge wherein he has opted not to

exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and dismissed the writ petition,

upholding the orders passed by the authorities below whereby private-

respondent No.3-Jaswinder Singh was appointed as Chowkidar.

4. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that on merits

the appellant is a better candidate and therefore, the authorities below

including the Learned Single Judge was not justified in upholding the said

orders appointing the private-respondent over the appellant.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114864-DB

(115) LPA-2101-2024 (O&M) -2-

5. A perusal of the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated

08.06.2017 (Annexure P-2) would go on to show that there were 2 candidates

in the race, i.e. the appellant and the private-respondent and both had

interacted with the SDM and the said officer came to the conclusion that the

private-respondent is a more suitable candidate. Only on account of the

appellant being 7th class pass while the private-respondent is 6th class pass,

cannot be a ground for us to substitute the opinion of the SDM who interacted

with both the candidates and came to the conclusion that the private-

respondent was a better candidate.

6. The Deputy Commissioner, in appeal, also dismissed the same

while reaching to the same conclusion. In the absence of any perversity or

illegality in the appointment procedure, we feel that the Learned Single Judge

was also justified in not interfering in the appointment of private-respondent

by the SDM as Chowkidar which has been approved by the Lower Appellate

Authority.

7. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the present appeal is

hereby dismissed.

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) 03.09.2024 JUDGE Sailesh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether Reportable : No

2 of 2