The High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal challenging an order where a Single Judge upheld a Lambardar appointment despite a late filing, ruling the delay was a mere irregularity affecting the appointment's validity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
#1#
LPA No.975 of 2009(O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.975 of 2009(O&M)
Date of Order: 6.10.2009
Tehal Singh
...Appellant
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
M.M. KUMAR,J
The instant appeal is filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging order dated 27.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the appointment of respondent No.4.
The issue, which was belatedly raised before the appellate authority namely Commissioner and Financial Commissioner was not agitated before the Collector that respondent No.4, who is elder brother of the appellant, had filed application for consideration of his name for appointment as Lambardar beyond the prescribed date.
Learned Single Judge has rejected the aforesaid argument by observing that such an argument should have been raised at the first stage. In any case, once the appointment has been ratified by the Collector
#2#
LPA No.975 of 2009(O&M)
himself, the acceptance of application beyond a particular date did not make any difference as the cases of the appellant and that of respondent No.4 have been considered on merit. At best, it can be considered as an irregularity, which would not affect the appointment.
Dismissed.
In view of the fact that we have dismissed the appeal on merit,
we are not inclined to pass any order on the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay.
JUDGE
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE
October 06, 2009 manoj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court below, being the Collector, could admit an appointment application filed beyond the prescribed date.
Whether the Single Judge was correct in holding that the late filing was merely an irregularity that did not vitiate the appointment.
Whether an appeal is maintainable against a Single Judge's order upholding such an appointment.
Tahal Singh
Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab
M.M. KUMAR
JASWANT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
