Dismissed

Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Aug 2009CWP/12657/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged appellate orders remanding a Lambardar appointment case to the Collector for fresh proclamation due to pending criminal records. Court found no prejudice in reconsideration of criminal aspects post-proclamation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of orders dated 24.4.2009 and 17.11.2008 dismissed; matter remanded for consideration.

Gursharan Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 12657 of 2009

¶3

Date of decision : 20.8.2009

Gursharan Singh

….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and Others

¶8

….. Respondents

¶9

Present: Mr. S.G. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

¶11

S.S. SARON, J.

¶12

The petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Collector, Jalandhar, order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Cooperation (Punjab).

¶13

On the death of Sh. Jagat Singh, Lambardar of village Shankar, Tehsil Nakodar District Jalandhar, the process was initiated for filling up the post of Lambardar. As many as 13 candidates including the petitioner and Jasdev Singh (respondent No.4) applied for the said post. The District Collector vide order dated 15.4.2008 (Annexure P1) found Jasdev Singh (respondent No.4) to be a suitable candidate and he was appointed as Lambardar. It was observed that criminal cases were registered against the petitioner. In appeal, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in terms

¶14

CWP No. 12657 of 2009

¶15

[2]

¶16

of his order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P2) observed that the petitioner was a better candidate but there were three FIRs against him. Besides, he was a shopkeeper. It was also observed that Jasdev Singh (respondent No.4) was not a superior person and he was an encroacher. Besides, his age was also more. Accordingly, the case was remanded by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar to the Collector, Jalandhar for fresh proclamation. It was held that let there be a fresh choice by the Collector if some suitable candidate was available. Both the candidates also could apply. Against the said order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, the petitioner and Jasdev Singh (respondent No.4) filed revision petitions before the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation Punjab which have been dismissed by impugned order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P7). It was observed that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Commissioner. The rights of the two contesting candidates were not going to be adversely affected. Besides, they shall also get a better chance to compete with other candidates, if any. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner though has been found more suitable than respondent No.4, however, he has been non-suited in view of the fact that it was observed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar that there were three criminal cases pending against him. It is submitted that the said conclusion drawn by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar is factually incorrect as the petitioner has been discharged in FIR No.159 dated 6.5.2004 registered at Police Station Nakodar for the offences under Sections 379 and 511 IPC vide order dated 20.5.2005 (Annexure P3) passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nakodar. Besides, FIR No.172 dated 14.5.2004 registered at Police Station Nakodar for the offences under Sections 452, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC has

¶18

CWP No. 12657 of 2009

¶19

[3]

¶20

been quashed by this Court vide order dated 18.7.2008 (Annexure P4) on the basis of compromise. The third case relates to proceedings under Sections 107/151 CrPC in which the petitioner had been discharged vide order dated 12.3.2007 (Annexure P5) by the SDM, Nakodar. The said orders it is submitted were passed before the passing of the order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P2) by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. As such, the petitioner has wrongly been non-suited.

¶21

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in his order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P2) has merely remanded the matter to the Collector so as to ascertain whether other better and suitable candidates are available. Two FIRs were registered against the petitioner. In one of the FIRs the petitioner has been discharged vide order dated 20.5.2009 (Annexure P3) and the other FIR has been quashed vide order dated 18.7.2008 (Annexure P4). In proceedings under Sections 107/151 CrPC the petitioner has been discharged vide order dated 12.3.2007 (Annexure P5) passed by the SDM, Nakodar. However, these aspects would more appropriately be gone into and considered by the District Collector after other candidates, if any, are available. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar has given opportunity to the petitioner and respondent No.4 to apply for the post of Lambardar in pursuance of the fresh proclamation. The learned Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab vide order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P7) has upheld the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar.

¶22

In my view, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner in case the matter is reconsidered for the purposes of finding a suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar. The case of the petitioner would also be reconsidered as to whether the discharge of the petitioner in the criminal case for

¶23

CWP No. 12657 of 2009

¶24

[4]

¶25

the offences under Sections 379/511 IPC, and also his discharge in the proceedings under Sections 107/151 CrPC, besides, the FIR for the offences under Sections 452, 427, 506, 148 and 149 IPC being quashed on the basis of compromise would stand in his way for appointment as Lambardar. In case these aspects are taken into consideration in the decision making process then it cannot be said that the same would result in any prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, there is no infirmity with the order dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P2) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab whereby the matter has been remanded.

¶26

Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is

¶27

dismissed.

¶28

(S.S. SARON) JUDGE

¶29

August 20, 2009 amit

Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gursharan Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Bakhshish Singh Vs District Revenue Officer etc.

Jitmal Kapoor Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Rattan Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Gurdev Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mewa Singh & Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat & Anr.

Balkar Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Pb Chd