[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kanwarpal Singh vs Financial Commissioner And Others on 2 April, 2026
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
LPA-662-2024 & LPA-805-2024 1
246
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision : 02.04.2026
1. LPA-662-2024 (O&M)
Kanwarpal Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
Financial Commissioner, Appeals
and others ...Respondent(s)
2. LPA-805-2024 (O&M)
Kanwarpal Singh ...Appellant
Vs.
Financial Commissioner, Appeals
and others ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Yatin Bunger, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4 and
Mr. Lovish Arora, Advocate for respondent No.5
in LPA-662-2024.
***
DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.
1. This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. LPA-662-2024 and
LPA-805-2024 as the issues involved in both these cases are same. The facts of
LPA-662-2024 are being considered for the adjudication of both the appeals.
2. Through the present intra-court appeal, the appellant has
challenged the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2024, whereby the writ
petitions filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were allowed and the matter was
remanded to the Collector i.e respondent No.3 for fresh adjudication.
authenticity of this order and
3. The facts emanating from the pleadings in the present appeal are
that the appellant was selected as Lambardar of Village Tibbi Khurd, District
Ferozepur, as the post fell vacant on 23.10.2009. Pursuant thereto, applications
were invited and as many as ten candidates, including respondent Nos. 4 and 5,
applied for the said post. Respondent No. 3, upon consideration, found the
appellant to be the most suitable candidate and appointed him as Lambardar
vide order dated 21.12.2011 (Annexure P-1), while rejecting the candidature of
the remaining applicants. Aggrieved by the said appointment, the other
candidates including respondent Nos. 4 and 5 preferred appeals before the
Commissioner, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 01.11.2012,
thereby affirming the order passed by respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the said
order dated 01.11.2012 was further assailed by way of revision petitions before
respondent No. 1, which were also dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2018,
again upholding the order passed by respondent No. 3. Subsequently,
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 challenged the aforesaid orders by filing writ petitions
bearing CWP Nos. 14767 of 2018 and 1952 of 2024, which were allowed vide
the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2024. The orders passed by the authorities
below were set aside, and the matter was remanded to respondent No. 3, i.e. the
Collector, for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties. Now, impugned judgment dated 30.01.2024 has been
assailed in this intra-court appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that respondent No.3
i.e. the Collector had duly evaluated the inter se merits of the candidates and
upon such consideration had selected the appellant as a most suitable
candidate. It is submitted that the said well-reasoned decision has been set
authenticity of this order and
aside by the learned Single Judge without proper appreciation of the material
available on record. Learned counsel further contends that respondent No.4
was holding multiple positions, including that of President/Member of local
bodies, and was thus rightly found unsuitable for appointment to the post of
Lambardar by respondent No. 3. However, this material aspect has been
overlooked by the learned Single Judge.
5. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge ignored the
relevant considerations and the settled criteria governing such appointments,
which had been duly satisfied by the appellant. Instead, the merits were
reassessed by disregarding the consistent findings recorded by all three
authorities, which had upheld the selection of the appellant. Hence, the
interference by the learned Single Judge, therefore, is stated to be unwarranted
and legally unsustainable.
6. Heard.
7. The relevant findings recorded by the learned Single judge are
reproduced hereunder -
Heard. On hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the
record, it is apparent that the process for the appointment of new
Lambardar in Village was initiated on the death of the earlier
Lambardar. The applications were received from the petitioner,
respondents and other candidates. Learned Collector on
appreciation of the reports and character antecedents, found
respondent No.4 to be the most suitable candidate and thus,
appointed him as Lambardar of the Village. Learned Collector
found Joginder Singh (petitioner in CWP-1952-2024) less
educated then other candidates. It was also found that his two
brothers were already Lambardars of other villages and
therefore it was not deemed appropriate to appoint him as
Lambardar. Similarly, candidate Inderjit Singh (petitioner in
CWP-14767-2018) was found to be President of Cooperative
Society, Tibbi Khurd and also President of Village Youth Club.
As, he was found to be holding a number of posts, therefore, he
was also not found suitable candidate for his appointment as
Lambardar. A complaint under Sections 326, 324, 323, 148 and
149 was found to be pending against Iqbal Singh wherein, he
authenticity of this order and
was summoned by the Court and ultimately, Collector appointed
respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the Village Tibbi Khurd. The
main argument raised by counsel for the petitioner-Inderjit
Singh is that petitioner was rejected by the Collector on the
ground that he was holding other posts of responsibility and
thus, he could not be available to discharge his duties as
Lambardar. However at the relevant time of appointment,
petitioner denied of holding any of these posts and thus, he
contended to be more meritorious for his appointment as
Lambardar but the Collector failed to appreciate the same.
Similarly, the main argument of petitioner-Joginder Singh is that
his claim was rejected because two members of his family were
already Lambardar and the Collector has not appreciated the
fact that the brothers of petitioner were not Lambardar of the
same Village and all brothers were living separate from each
other.
There is no dispute regarding the judgments relied upon by
learned counsel for respondent No.4, however, on the facts and
circumstances of the case, the same are distinguishable.
There is no gainsaying that the Collector is a prime authority for
appointment of Lambardar. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the merits of each
candidate has not been appreciated by the Collector and
similarly the effect of two persons of a family being already
appointed as Lambardar and non-availability of Inderjit Singh
due to holding of alleged other posts have not been appreciated
by the learned Collector especially when it is contended that at
the time of his appointment, he was not holding those posts.
Thus, the evidences of the parties deserve to be re-appreciated
and the order passed by the Collector being perverse, the case
needs to be decided afresh. Consequently, the orders dated
21.12.2011, 01.11.2012 and 30.01.2018 are set aside. The case
is remanded to the Collector for decision afresh, who would
decide the same expeditiously, preferably, within three months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order after hearing all the
parties. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the
Collector concerned forthwith who on receipt of the same will
issue notice for appearance to all the parties and proceed with
the matter.
Both the petitions are disposed of in above-terms.
8. A perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the material
available on record reveals that the learned Single Judge has set aside the
orders passed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 primarily on the ground that the
candidature of respondent No. 4 had been rejected solely on the premise that at
the relevant time he was holding the posts of President of a Cooperative
Society and President of the Village Youth Club. However, it was found that
authenticity of this order and
respondent No. 4 was, in fact, not holding any such positions at the relevant
time, and this material aspect had not been duly appreciated by respondent No.
3, i.e., the Collector, resulting in an erroneous rejection of his candidature for
appointment to the post of Lambardar, which warranted reconsideration.
Similarly in the case of respondent No. 5 in LPA No. 805 of 2024 his
candidature was rejected on the ground that 2 members from his family i.e. his
brothers were already appointed as Lambardars. However, the brothers of
respondent No.5 were not appointed as Lambardars of the same village and
were residing separately. Therefore, said fact was also found to be contrary to
the findings recorded by the respondent No. 3 while rejecting the claim of the
respondent No. 5.
9. We have also examined the orders dated 21.12.2011, 01.11.2012
and 30.01.2018 and find ourselves in agreement with the observations made by
the learned Single Judge that the aforesaid material facts were not properly
appreciated by the authorities below, leading to an unjustified rejection of the
candidature of respondent No.4 and 5.
10. Given the above discussion, we believe that there is no perversity
or error in the impugned judgement dated 30.01.2024 passed by learned Single
Judge and the same does not require any interference.
11. Consequently, the Intra-Court appeal stand(s) dismissed.
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA) (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
02.04.2026
vanita
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
authenticity of this order and
