AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge is to the order dated 04.12.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab affirming the orders passed by Commissioner and Collector appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of Village Julkan, Tehsil & District Patiala.
The dispute in the present lis relates to the appointment to the office of Lambardar of Village Julkan, Tehsil & District Patiala.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment was not made after evaluating the comparative merit of the candidates and thus the orders being in teeth of Rule 17 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and the ratio of law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and others, (2009) 3 SCC 439, cannot be sustained. He refers to comparative merit of the candidates. The same is tabulated hereunder:
| Gurdit Singh Petitioner | Kirpal Singh Respondent no.4 | |
|---|---|---|
| i. | He is 28 year old, and B.A. passed | He is 53 years old and 8th class |
| ii. | He has 3.5 bighas of land in village | He has 1 bigha 1 biswa of land |
| iii. | He can write Punjabi and English language. | He does not know English language |
| iv. | 36 respectables of village supported his candidature and panchayat passed a resolution in his favour. | 40 respectables supported him. |
| v. | He is always present in the village to assist and help the village people. | He is atta chakki owner and busy in his private work |
| vi. | He is a hale and hearty person. | He is a old man of 53 years and not energetic as compared to the petitioner. |
He submits that the petitioner despite being more meritorious vis-a-vis respondent No.4, has been ignored.
Per contra, Mr. Sisodia would submit that the appointment was made by Collector on the basis of recommendations received from Assistant Collector 1st Grade and Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. He refers to plea raised by respondent No.4 before the Commissioner qua father of the petitioner being in unauthorized occupation of shamlat land reserved for cremation ground. He submits that as per settled law, once the Collector has made a choice after considering the recommendations and the documents on record, the same need not be interfered. Hence, the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner have rightly upheld the order passed by the Collector.
Having heard counsel for the parties and after carefully perusing the records of the case, this Court finds that though a plea was raised by appointed candidate (respondent No.4) before the Commissioner regarding father of the petitioner being in illegal occupation of shamlat land, but no finding has been recorded by any of the authorities w.r.t. the same.
Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is better educated and younger as compared to the appointed candidate, this Court finds that the Collector erred in law in appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar ignoring the petitioner without commenting upon his merits.
In view thereof, this Court finds that the impugned order passed by the Collector and the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner upholding the same, cannot be sustained. The same are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector to decide the same afresh in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from today.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed off.