Dismissed

Sukhdev Singh v. Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Aug 2009CWP/12860/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Jagjit Singh as Lambardar. The court held that belated allegations of misconduct post-dated the decision and that judicial review under Articles 226/227 does not inquire into the merits of administrative decisions unless there is gross irregularity or perversity.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the appointment of Jagjit Singh as Lambardar is dismissed due to lack of merit and belatedness of alleged misconduct.

Sukhdev Singh Vs Financial Commissio… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

.....

¶3

Date of decision:24.8.2009

Sukhdev Singh

.....Petitioner

Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Present: Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

S.S. Saron, J.

¶11

In terms of letter dated 1.8.2006 that was received in the office of Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar from the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur a new post of Lambardar from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes was created/sanctioned for Village Doda. The process was initiated for filling-up the newly created/sanctioned post of Lambardar from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes in accordance with Rule 19-B of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. After the case was processed, the Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector Grade-II, Doda vide order dated 4.1.2007 (Annexure-P.7) recommended that either Atma Singh or Sukhdev Singh (petitioner) be appointed as Lambardar. The Tehsildar/Assistant Collector Grade-II on 20.3.2007 (Annexure-P.6) recommended the name of Sukhdev Singh (petitioner) for appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Collector Grade-I/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Gidderbaha vide order dated 22.3.2007 (Annexure-P.5) observed that Sukhdev Singh (petitioner) had appeared and his name was recommended

¶12

C.W.P. No.12860 of 2009

¶13

[2]

¶14

for appointment. The Collector/Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 17.4.2007 (Annexure-P.4), however, observed that it creates doubt that only one candidate from such a big village had appeared. Accordingly, the case was remanded back to the Assistant Collector Grade-I/SDM, Gidderbaha with the direction that all the candidates be heard and after their merits/demerits, any specific person be recommended for appointment to the post. Thereafter, the matter was again considered by the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar. In terms of order dated 13.11.2007 (AnnexureP.3) it was observed that Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) was the most suitable candidate. He was 32 years of age and a resident of Village Doda. He belonged to Boria community and was 10+2. His name had been recommended by the Assistant Collector Grade-I/SDM, Gidderbaha. The other candidate Atma Singh, it was observed, was working as a Stamp Vendor in Village Doda and was 36 years old. Jeeta Singh, it was observed, was 70 years old and appeared to be very old person. Sukhdev Singh (petitioner) had appeared before the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar and on seeing him he was observed by the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, to be inexperienced. Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4), it was observed, was the most suitable candidate. Therefore, according to the recommendations of the Assistant Collector Grade-I/SDM, Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) was appointed as Lambardar of Village Doda from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes on the post which had been created/sanctioned by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. Against the said order dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure-P.3), the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division,

¶15

C.W.P. No.12860 of 2009

¶16

[3]

¶17

Ferozepur, who vide order dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure-P.2) dismissed the appeal. It was observed that Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) had been recommended for the post of Lambardar from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes by the Assistant Collector Grade-I/SDM. Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) was 32 years of age and was 10+2 pass and he was a suitable candidate. Sukhdev Singh (petitioner), it was observed was inexperienced. The Commissioner was also of the view that Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) was more mature whereas Sukhdev Singh (petitioner) was immature being younger in age. Atma Singh had not filed any appeal and, therefore, it was observed was not aggrieved against the order dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure-P.3) of the Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar. Accordingly, no illegality or irregularity was found in the order of the District Collector. The petitioner dissatisfied with the above order filed a revision petition under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 against the order dated 25.9.2008 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. The learned Financial Commissioner vide order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure-P.1) dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner. It was observed that counsel for the petitioner had failed to point out any illegality or perversity in the order of the Courts below which may warrant interference. It was observed that the choice of the Collector is to be honoured. Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure-P.1) of the Financial Commissioner has filed the present petition.

¶18

Leaned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) who has been appointed as Lambardar has

¶19

C.W.P. No.12860 of 2009

¶20

[4]

¶21

misconducted himself in the village. A reference has been made to the affidavit dated 18.7.2009 (Annexure-P.8) which has been jointly deposed by Bhagwan Singh alias Kairo, Panchayat Member, Kamaljit Singh alias Jalandhar, Panchayat Member, Malkiat Singh, Panchayat Member, Baldev Singh, Ex-Panchayat Member and Sham Singh, Ex-Panchayat Member, residents of Village Doda. It has been deposed therein that Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) entered the house of his neighbour after seeing the lady member alone. He had tried to molest her and he ran away by climbing the wall of the house when hue and cry was raised. Besides, Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) tried to molest the wife of Gopi Singh and he pressurized Gopi Singh and his family and threatened them. Besides, he did not let them lodge a FIR. Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) also committed other shameful acts and took the wife of Mithu Singh, who was sitting with her son Jagsir Singh to his house in the night. Jagsir Singh was beaten up badly and he was threatened that they would kill him. Therefore, it is stated that Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) does not bear good moral character in the village and is unsuitable for appointment as Lambardar.

¶22

After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the affidavit (Annexure-P.8) on which strong reliance is placed is dated 18.7.2009, which is much after the conclusion of the proceedings regarding appointment of Lambardar and is even after the passing of the order dated 17.3.2009 (Annexure-P.1) by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. There is no mention as to when the alleged incidents took place and neither any complaint is shown to have been filed on the basis of the allegations as made in the said affidavit (Annexure-P.8). In case there was any such material, the same was liable to

¶23

C.W.P. No.12860 of 2009

¶24

[5]

¶25

be placed on record at the appropriate stage before the Revenue authorities when the case was being considered. Besides, it is not shown as to whether the deponents as mentioned in the said affidavit (Annexure-P.8) have made any complaint before the Police or before the revenue authorities with regard to the alleged misconduct of Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4). Therefore, at this stage once the proceedings for appointment of Lambardari have been concluded by the Financial Commissioner it would be unsafe to rely on such affidavit.

¶26

The appointment of a Lambardar as is well known is an administrative act and prerogative of the District Collector. His selection is not to be lightly undone until and unless it is shown that there is a gross irregularity, perversity or patent error in the order appointing the Lambardar. No such defect, illegality or perversity has been shown. The reliance placed on the affidavit (Annexure-P.8) at this stage in proceedings under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is highly belated and to accept the same would be unjust. This Court in exercise of it supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not to go into the veracity of facts on the basis of which inquiry was conducted and decision reached at for appointing a Lambardar. In exercise of the powers of judicial review the Court is more concerned with the decision making process rather than the merits of the decision. The District Collector/Deputy Commissioner, Muktsar in his order dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure-P.3) on seeing Sukhdev Singh (petitioner) has observed him to be inexperienced. The Deputy Commissioner had the advantage of seeing the demeanour of all the candidates who appeared before him in the consideration process for appointment of Lambardar. It is, therefore, that

¶27

C.W.P. No.12860 of 2009

¶28

[6]

¶29

his decision is not to be lightly upset and that too by adverting to material which was not before the Deputy Commissioner/Collector at the time of consideration. The affidavit (Annexure-P.8), as has already been noticed, has been set-up after the decision and even after the order dated 17.3.2009

¶30

(Annexure-P.1) of the learned Financial Commissioner.

¶31

In the circumstances, there is no infirmity in the appointment of Jagjit Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar of Village Doda from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes against the newly created/sanctioned vacancies in terms of letter dated 1.8.2006 from the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur.

¶32

Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶33

August 24, 2009.

¶34

(S.S. Saron) Judge

¶35

hsp

¶36

NOTE : Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes

Sukhdev Singh v. Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. Financial Commissioner Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mewa Singh & Ors. Vs Gram Panchayat & Anr.

Balkar Singh Vs Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Pb Chd

Mewa Singh & Anr. Vs State of Pb. & Ors.

Ram Jawari Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Jagga Singh and Others Vs Superintending Canal Oficer and Others

Ram Gopal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.