AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PANKAJ JAIN, J ( ORAL )
These two writ petitions are directed against the order dated 25.10.2016, passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh whereby the revision filed by respondent no.4 has been accepted setting aside the order passed by Commissioner. The order passed by Collector has been restored.
The dispute between the parties relates to appointment to the post of Lambardar of village Sunner Khurd, District Jalandhar. The present two writ petitioners and respondent no.4 were the three candidates seeking appointment. Collector vide order dated 12.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) appointed Jaspal Singh as Lambardar observing as under:-
“Shri A.K Singal counsel appearing for the candidate Jasvir Singh during arguments stated that this candidate is 40 years old, 12th class pass, and is diploma holder. He has 6 acres of ancestral land. He is president of Guruduwara since 15 years. The land has not been shown in naksha lambardari but he is owner of 4-1/2 acres of land. The land is to be taken into consideration at the time of appointment. Therefore, he may be appointed as lambaradar.
Shri L.S Sohal counsel for candidate Jaspal Singh stated that he is 40 years old, 7th class pass and is owner of 4 k 10 M of land. He is son of lambardar. Therefore, he knows the work of lambardar. The lower revenue officer have recommended his name. Therefore, he may be appointed as lambardar. While arguing against Sukvir Singh he has stated that he is singer. He is already a Sarpanch of the village and is under burdened. One person should not be given two parts at one place. Secondly he goes out for singing. His appointment may not be of much benefit.
Sukhvir Singh himself appeared and stated that he is 12th class pass. He is 41 years old. He is having 16 K-14 M of land in the village. Therefore he may be appointed as lambardar. While arguing against Jaspal Singh stated that he is not having his own land. He has got transferred the land in his name for the sake lambardari.
The candidates who appeared regarding this case were heard. The arguments of the ld. counsels were heard carefully persued. The report and file received from SDM. Sukhvir Singh with Taddi Jatha goes abroad for singing. Therefore, he cannot devote the time for the works of lambardari and one candidate should not be given two responsibilities. As per naksha lambardari Jasbir Singh is not the owner of the land. Therefore, considering the Jaspal Singh proper and better candidate.”
Aggrieved petitioners preferred appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure P-2), accepted the appeal observing that the case requires a fresh look in view of subsequent development which is a complaint received against the appointed candidates for having attested wrong pedigree table. That apart, Commissioner opined that both the non-suited candidates were more educated than the appointed one and enjoyed better reputation. Thus, the case needs to be remanded to the District Collector, Jalandhar.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, respondent no.4 preferred revision petition which has been allowed by the Financial Commissioner relying upon the principle that Collector’s order appointing a lambardar should not be interfered unless it is found to be illegal or perverse.
Learned counsel for petitioner Sukhvir Singh submits that despite both the writ petitioners being higher in education, as compared to the appointed candidate, Collector opted to appoint respondent no.4/Jaspal Singh, who is 7th class pass recognizing his heriditory claim.
Learned counsel for petitioner Jasvir Singh has assailed the order passed by Collector, as well as Financial Commissioner submitting that as per settled law the comparative merit has to be seen on the date of appointment. The petitioner was non-suited for not possessing any land whereas prior to the date of appointment Jasvir Singh has acquired land. He refers to mutation Annexure P-1.
Per contra, Mr. B.S.Bhinder, Advocate would submit that Financial Commissioner has rightly accepted the revision. Petitioner Sukhvir Singh, being member of Dhadhi Jatha is not available. He travels abroad due to his vocation. The other petitioner namely Jasvir Singh son of Gurdas Singh did not possess any land at the time of filing of application.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the paper book.
There cannot be any dispute with the settled proposition that the choice of Collector need not be interfered by the higher authorities. However, the principle is not absolute and is subject to exceptions. Whereever, the order passed by Collector is found to be perverse, the higher authorities are within their power to interfere and to remove the perversity.
It is equally trite that in the case of Lambardars, the comparative merit has to be analysed as to the merit on the date of appointment and not on the last date of application. Even if, Sukhvir Singh is stated to be non-suited for being part of Dhadhi Jatha, petitioner Jasvir Singh has been wrongly non-suited by the Collector despite being better educated as compared to Jaspal Singh-respondent no.4. Collector ignored the fact that on the date of appointment, he had already acquired land and was thus eligible for being considered for appointment as Lambardar.
In view of above, the order passed by Financial Commissioner dated 25.10.2016 and that by Collector dated 12.05.2011 (Annexure P-1) are hereby set aside. Respondent no.4/Jasvir Singh being better on merits is appointed as Lambardar.
In view of the above, both the writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Pending misc. application, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
A photocopy of the order be placed on the file of connected petition.