Girdhari Lal vs The Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, Chandigarh and Others

Ranjit Singh, J.—The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 4 as S.C. Lambardar in Village Lachowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiapur. The petitioner alongwith some other persons were aspirants for the post of S.C. Lambardar of the village and, thus, he applied for the post. He is an ex-service man also. The Collector while appointing respondent No. 4 considered the claim of all the candidates. So far as case of the petitioner is concerned, the Collector noticed that he is 60 years of age. He is 5th class pass. It is alleged that the petitioner is running a Karyana shop at Bhagat Nagar, Hoshiarpur and that he was in illegal possession of shamlat deh land. The police report showed that he is not residing in Village Lachowal. Taking these factors into consideration, the Collector found respondent No. 4 to be more suitable and this aspect is duly discussed by him in his order dated 29.8.2006. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision before Commissioner, who upheld the choice exercised by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner has also declined to interfere in the choice exercise by the Collector by observing that it should not be lightly interfered with and should be so done when it is found to be perverse or against the law. He also found that respondent No. 4 was more meritorious and, thus, upheld his appointment.

Counsel for the petitioner has made reference to some criminal proceedings that have been initiated against respondent No. 4, who while in his capacity as Sarpanch has allegedly made false complaint against some lady and her husband. On investigation, the complaint was found to be false and proceedings u/s 182 I.P.C. had been initiated against respondent No. 4. This, in my view, may not be a bar for appointment, which was done in the year 2006. This is an event which is subsequent to the date of appointment of respondent No. 4. If this is some infirmity, then any action, as per law, may be open but this may not be good reason to interfere with the appointment already made. This is not valid ground to interfere in the impugned order. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.