Disposed

Joginder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Pb. Chd & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Dec 2008CWP/20780/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order directing a fresh selection process for a post of Lamberdar. The Court held the order was not unreasonable but, as a temporary measure pending a fresh selection, allowed the petitioner to continue in the post without prejudicing the final controversy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to continue in the post of Lamberdar pending a fresh selection process.

Joginder Singh Vs Financial Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2008)

¶1

C.W.P No.20780 of 2008

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh.

¶4

C.W.P No.20780 of 2008

¶5

Date of Decision: 10.12.2008

Joginder Singh

....Petitioner.

Versus

The Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Pb. and others

¶10

....Respondents.

¶11

Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur

¶12

Present: Mr. S.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

J.S. Khehar, J. (Oral).

¶14

Consequent upon the issuance of two proclamations, only one application was received by the authorities before the prescribed date i.e. 15.5.2006. The petitioner herein i.e. Joginder Singh submitted his application dated 24.5.2006. His application was entertained at the appellate stage by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, on the ground that the proclamations had “not been conducted in a proper manner”. Out of the two candidates, the Appellate Authority found the petitioner most suitable. The determination rendered by the Appellate Authority was impugned before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. The Financial Commissioner, however, was of the view that fresh proclamation should be issued so as to obtain a reasonable number of

¶15

C.W.P No.20780 of 2008

¶16

¶17

applications so that the most deserving candidate is appointed against the post of Lamberdar. We find nothing unreasonable in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, dated 18.8.2008 (Annexure P-8). Thus viewed, we find no merit in the instant writ petition.

¶18

Despite our aforesaid observations, we have also perused the merits of the petitioner, as have been discussed by the District Collector, Ludhiana, in his order dated 29.9.2006. We are satisfied that till a fresh selection process is completed, it would be just and appropriate to allow the petitioner to continue against the post of Lamberdar.

¶19

Despite our instant direction, it is made clear that the observations made by us in the instant order should not be taken as an expression of opinion, one way or the other, on the controversy relating to the appointment against the post of Lamberdar.

¶20

Writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶21

( J.S. Khehar ) Judge

¶22

( Nirmaljit Kaur ) Judge.

¶23

10.12.2008 sk.

Joginder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Pb. Chd & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joginder Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Pb. Chd & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bahadur Singh etc. Vs State of Pb.

Sher Mohd. and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Massa Singh and Anr. Vs Financial Commissioner Appeals-I & Ors.

Harbans Singh etc. Vs Director Rural Development and Panch. etc.

Kirandeep Dhir Vs Financial Commissioner, Animal Hubandry and Ors.

Giani Vs Director Consolidation of Hol.Chd.& Ors.