Allowed

Harjinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner Co-Op Pb and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Jul 2012CWP/10600/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that the Collector's choice to appoint him as Lambardar was final as he was found more meritorious after interaction. The Court set aside the Financial Commissioner's order remanding the matter, finding no error of fact or arbitrariness to justify revisional interference.

What did the court decide?

The order passed by the Financial Commissioner was set aside, the District Collector's appointment was restored, and the writ petition was allowed.

Harjinder Singh Vs Financial Commissioner… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 10600 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: July 03, 2012

Harjinder Singh

.....Petitioner

VERSUS

Financial Commissioner & others

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

PRESENT: Ms. Reena Bains, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Yatinder Sharma DAG, Punjab for the State.

¶14

Mr. Narinder S. Lucky, Advocate, for respondent No.4.

¶15

¶16

RANJIT SINGH, J.

¶17

A post of Lambardar, Village Dosanjh Kalan, Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar, occurred due to death of the earlier Lambardar. Applications were, accordingly invited. The petitioner as well as respondent No.4 had applied for being appointed as Lambardar. The District Collector after discussing the merits of respective candidates and after interacting with the candidates, decided to appoint the petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 21.12.2006. Respondent No.4 had filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 21.8.2007. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed a revision, which was accepted

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No. 10600 of 2010

¶19

-2-

¶20

by the Financial Commissioner on 12.3.2010, which has now been impugned by the petitioner through the present writ petition.

¶21

Notice of motion was issued in the presence of the counsel for respondent No.4, who was on caveat and thereafter, operation of the order dated 12.3.2010 was stayed. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Financial Commissioner has no jurisdiction to interfere with the choice of Collector and to remit the matter for reconsideration to the Collector.

¶22

I have gone through the order passed by the District Collector. It is seen that he has noticed the various submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and thereafter, had interacted with both the candidates, who were desirous of being appointed as Lambardar. The Collector had inquired about development activities and preparation of voters I.D. lists for the candidates. Respondent No.4 could not give any satisfactory reply, whereas the petitioner had given good and thorough information regarding the development activities and preparation of voter I.D. Lists. He was also found to have knowledge about the various development activities in the village. On this basis, the District Collector termed the petitioner to be a better candidate and accordingly, appointed him as a Lambardar of the village. The Commissioner had also considered the arguments of the respective parties and had also gone through the comparative merits of these candidates. After noticing that the District Collector made his choice

¶23

Civil Writ Petition No. 10600 of 2010 -3-

¶24

in favour of the petitioner finding him more meritorious, the Commissioner had declined to interfere in the same by observing that this order is neither perverse nor contrary to the rules. The Commissioner has rightly noticed that the respondent No.4 cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. His claim had been duly considered by the District Collector and accordingly, the Commissioner had dismissed the appeal.

¶25

The Financial Commissioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction had interfered with the choice exercised by the District Collector and had remanded the case back for reconsideration to the District Collector on the ground that the District Collector had failed to take into consideration some of the facts and some misrepresentation, which was alleged on the part of the petitioner. The jurisdiction for the Financial Commissioner to interfere in the choice exercised by the Collector is limited. In this regard, reference can be made to order passed in C.W.P. No.10874 of 2011 (Bhup Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Haryana, Chandigarh & others), decided on 4.7.2011. As is noticed in this case as a general rule, the choice of the Collector is final and except where the order discloses the lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact, so as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, no interference would be called for. In this regard reference can be made to Ujagar Singh Versus State of Punjab, 2008(3) RCR (Civil) 28 and Gurdial Singh Versus Iqbal Singh, 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 283. The choice of the Collector is, accordingly, treated as final.

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No. 10600 of 2010

¶27

-4-

¶28

No submission is made to show lack of jurisdiction or error of fact or arbitrariness, which would call for interference in the choice exercised by the Collector. In my view, the Collector had adopted the right approach in interacting with the candidates and had then decided to appoint the petitioner finding him more meritorious. There is merit in the pleas raised in the writ petition. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner, therefore, cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Order passed by the District Collector is restored.

¶29

July 03, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE

Harjinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner Co-Op Pb and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjinder Singh v. Financial Commissioner Co-Op Pb and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pritpal Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rajesh Vs State of Haryana

Harparkash Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amrinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jagjit Singh @ Jeeti etc. Vs State of Punjab

Des Raj Rana and Ors. Vs Chandigarh Administration and Ors.