In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
C.W.P. No.11440 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:3.8.2009
Ajit Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others
.....Respondents
....
Present: Mr. Rajpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
The earlier Lambardar of Village Dandewal, Tehsil Garshankar,
District Hoshiarpur, namely, Nirmal Singh died on 11.10.1999. On account
of the said demise proceedings were initiated for filling-up the vacancy of
Lambardar. In response to the proclamation made in the village, five
persons including Ajit Singh (petitioner) and Mohinderpal (respondent
No.4) applied for the post. The District Collector considered the
comparative merit of the candidates. Mohinderpal (respondent No.4), who
has been appointed, it was observed, was 60 years of age. He was 9th pass
and he owns 10 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land, besides he was an ex-
serviceman and had served for 14 years in the Army. His right leg had
been amputated during service. Ajit Singh (petitioner), it was noticed, was
70 years of age. He was 8th class pass, besides, he owned 34 Kanals 11
Marlas of land. He was also an ex-serviceman and had served in the Army
for 15 years. He was the real brother of Nirmal Singh (deceased)
Lambardar. He remained Sarpanch of the village for 15 years. After
C.W.P. No.11440 of 2009
[2]
noticing the comparative merit, Mohinderpal (respondent No.4) was
appointed as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 28.6.2006
(Annexure-P.1). The petitioner aggrieved against the said order preferred
an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who
vide order dated 26.2.2007 (Annexure-P.2) upheld the appointment of
Mohinderpal (respondent No.4). The petitioner filed a revision petition
before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, who vide order
dated 24.12.2008 (Annexure-P.3) dismissed the revision petition and upheld
the appointment of Mohinderpal (respondent No.4) as Lambardar.
Aggrieved against the orders (Annexures-P.1 to P.3) the petitioner has filed
the present petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the
comparative merit of the candidates for appointment as Lambardar has not
been considered by the revenue authorities and, in fact, the petitioner is
more meritorious than respondent No.4. It is submitted that the petitioner
had served in the Army for 15 years which is one year more than respondent
No.4. Therefore, more weightage was liable to be given to the petitioner.
Besides, the petitioner has more land than respondent No.4 and he has also
been former Sarpanch and is brother of the deceased Lambardar. Therefore,
the petitioner is more suitable to be appointed as Lambardar.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may
be noticed that all the revenue authorities have found Mohinderpal
(respondent No.4) to be more suitable than the petitioner. The petitioner, it
was observed, was 70 years of age whereas respondent No.4 was 60 years of
age. The fact that the leg of respondent No.4 is amputated was duly
considered by the revenue authorities. Mohinder Pal (respondent No.4) it
C.W.P. No.11440 of 2009
[3]
was noticed owned 10 Kanals 18 Marlas of land. Besides, he was an ex-
serviceman and had served 14 years in the Army. His right leg had been
amputated during service. The order passed by the District Collector, which
has been upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner is on
the comparative assessment of the merits and demerits of the candidates and
it is not shown to be, in any manner, illegal or perverse.
The appointment of a Lambardar as is well known is an
administrative act and prerogative of the District Collector and his choice is
not to be lightly undone until and unless there is a gross irregularity,
perversity or patent error which would warrant the order that has been
passed to be nullified. No such defect or error is discernible in the
appointment of Mohinderpal (respondent No.4). Besides, the order is not
illegal or perverse. The revenue authorities on the basis of material on
record and having reached at a conclusion as to who is more suitable
candidate for appointment as Lambardar, then this Court in exercise of its
supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to upset and dislodge the said findings
and conclusions on re-appreciation of evidence and material on record. The
jurisdiction of this Court is supervisory and not appellate.
In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
August 3, 2009. (S.S. Saron)
Judge
*hsp*
NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes