Piara Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sodhi, J.

The impugned order of the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, of December 19, 1975 (Annexure P4) warrants no interference in writ proceedings.

The dispute here concerns the appointment of Lambardar of village Lohar, Tehsil and District Jullundur. Basant Singh, uncle of the petitioner Piara Singh was the Lambardar of this village. The said Basant Singh died on January 26, 1973. During the life time of the said Basant Singh the petitioner was appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar on September 7, 1956. After the death of his uncle, he applied for appointment as Lambardar, and being the only applicant, it was his claim that it was incumbent upon the Collector to appoint him as such.

Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned that in 1943 the petitioner was convicted for an offence under the Punjab Excise Act for being found in possession of half a bottle of illicit liquor. A fine of Rs. 10/ was imposed upon him on this account.

The Collector, Jullundur by his order of November 28, 1973 (Annexure P.2) held that the petitioner was not a suitable person for being appointed as Lambardar in view of his conviction under the Punjab Excise Act, and ordered that a proclamation be made in the village inviting applications for the post of Lambardar.

On appeal, the Commissioner Jullundur by his order of July 20, 1974 (Annexure P3) upheld the order of the Collector inviting applications for filling the post of Lambardar. It was held, however, that the claim of the petitioner too would be open to consideration for appointment to this post. This order was upheld in revision by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

It was the contention of Mr. K.L. Jagga, counsel for the petitioner, that being the sole applicant the petitioner was entitled to appointment as Lambardar, more so, keeping in view the fact that he had been the Sarbrah Lambardar since 1956. The conviction of the petitioner under the Punjab Excise Act, it was contended, was over 30 years old and was at any rate of a minor nature and this could not be held against him. The argument in other words was that it was incumbent upon the authorities concerned to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar.

There is no right vested in any person to be appointed as Lambardar. All that the petitioner can claim is a right to be considered for this post, a right which has already been recognized and conceded by the authorities concerned. He cannot be heard to claim as of right, his appointment as Lambardar merely on the ground that he was the only applicant. The Collector acted well within the jurisdiction vested with him in inviting fresh applications in order to make an appointment of Lambardar after considering the claims of all who may apply for such appointment.

There is, thus, no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly hereby dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.