Balbir Kaur vs State of Punjab and Another

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Scheduled Caste Lambardar in village Sanawa, Tehsil and District Nawanshahar. The proclamation was done. After considering the claim, District Collector appointed the petitioner on 7.8.2007. Respondent No. 2 challenged the appointment of the petitioner by filing an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner also found the petitioner more suitable and eligible for the post of Lambardar and upheld the order of the Collector. Financial Commissioner interfered with the order and rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of her appointment, she was defaulter of Sanawa Cooperative Agricultural Society Limited. As per the petitioner, the Financial Commissioner failed to take into consideration that the petitioner was no more a defaulter and had cleared the dues of the society and in this regard the petitioner had produced a certificate dated 7.4.2008. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition to impugn the order passed by the Financial Commissioner. In response to notice of motion, reply is filed.

Counsel for respondent No. 2 would contend that the petitioner was a defaulter on the day of her consideration for appointment to the post of Lambardar and as such would suffer a disqualification on this count. Accordingly, he would plead that the Financial Commissioner was justified in interfering with the orders passed by the Collector and upheld by the Commissioner while appointing petitioner as Scheduled Caste Lambardar.

Some delay in paying the liability towards the Cooperative Society may not deserve such a serious view to hold a person ineligible for the appointment to the post of Lambardar. It is a case of appointment of Scheduled Caste Lambardar. The liability of the Society can not be equated with the loan, where default may have to be viewed different. It would have been a different matter if the default had been perpetual and a continuing one. The petitioner had cleared the liability long ago and this fact ought not to have been ignored by the Financial Commissioner. After all, it is the Collector, who has to see the suitability of a candidate and he is the best judge to know and evaluate the candidates. It is the Collector who is the appointing authority. The appointment of the petitioner on the face of the liability, which, the petitioner owed to the society and which had been discharged would show that the choice exercised by the Collector was no more suffering from any disqualification and so could not be termed as arbitrary or illegal. The interference in the impugned order by the Financial Commissioner is not justified. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner cannot be upheld and is set-aside. The orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner are restored. Necessary consequence would follow accordingly. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.