Petitioner challenging appointment of Respondent No.6 as Lambardar. High Court held that while appointment is generally upheld, future consideration of unsubstantiated allegations against petitioner should be excluded.
Impugned orders to not be taken as conclusive material against petitioner in future applications; Writ Petition dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civl Writ Petition No.12720 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 21, 2011.
Jarnail Singh ..... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab and others
..... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
(Oral) Surya Kant, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.6 as Lambardar of village Jatana Niwan, Tehsil Khamano, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
The Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala as well as the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, have concurrently held that respondent No.6 has an edge over the petitioner on the strength of better academic qualification and land holding.
It is well settled that the Collector's choice should not ordinarily be disturbed unless it is found to be perverse and against law. That being the case, the impugned orders call for no interference by this
CWP No.12720 of 2011 [2]
Court at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be right in contending that the obiter dicta observation of the authorities regarding the petitioner as defaulter of the Co-operative Societies or that he has encroached upon the panchayat land, are not substantiated by any material on record. Hence, it is directed that in future as and when the petitioner applies for the post of Lambardar or any other office, the impugned orders shall not be taken as a conclusive material against him in support of these allegations.
With this observation, the writ petition is dismissed.
July 21, 2011 Mohinder
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's prior allegations of being a defaulter or encroacher can be used as conclusive material against him in future appointments as Lambardar.
Jarnail Singh
State of Punjab
Respondent No.6
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
