Petitioner challenged the Superintendent/District Magistrate's decision regarding his appointment as Lambardar after the Financial Commissioner upheld the original appointment of another candidate. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Writ petition dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioner.
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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 12409 of 2011
Date of decision : 23.07.2012
Udai Singh
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Jagdeep Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yatinder Sharma DAG, Punjab for the State.
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for respondent No. 4.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
On initiation of the process for appointment of Lambardar, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Amritsar recommended the name of the petitioner on 08.07.2008. The Collector, however, appointed respondent No. 4 on 07.08.2008. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded back to the Collector for fresh consideration. The Collector again upheld the appointment of the petitioner on 29.12.2009. The petitioner again filed an appeal against the same, which was accepted. Against this, respondent No. 4 filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, who has now upheld the
Civil Writ Petition No. 12409 of 2011
-2-
order passed by the Collector and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is much more meritorious. Counsel further says that one major issue, which was required to be kept in view, was completely ignored by the Collector. As per him, the petitioner and his father etc. had been working as Lambardar without being appointed as such. This was considered to be disqualification by the Commissioner, who had found that instead of holding this against the respondent, the Collector has given him the benefit of this fact and this could not have been done. As per the petitioner, he has much more better merit, he is more qualified but still the Collector has exercised the choice in favour of respondent No. 4.
The Financial Commissioner has also considered the submissions of the petitioner. He has rightly observed that, as per the settled proposition of law, the choice of Collector in the consideration process for appointment of Lambardar is normally not to be disturbed and should not be lightly interfered unless there is grave error, perversity or illegality in the order appointing the Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner has observed that the Commissioner had wrongly given discredit to the respondent for having served as Sarbrah Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner has noticed that such practice is common practice whenever the post of Lambardar falls vacant. The Collector has also considered this aspect and has observed that Ashwani Kumar has performed the duties of Aarji Lambardar and has been deposited the money collected. Udai Singh
-3-
Civil Writ Petition No. 12409 of 2011
was related to the deceased Lambardar Amar Singh. These facts were not found correct during verification. After considering all these issues, the Financial Commissioner interfered with the order passed by the Commissioner and has upheld the order passed by the Collector. The view expressed by the Financial Commissioner is reasonable and does not call for interference.
Dismissed.
July 23, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE
Udai Singh
The State of Punjab and others
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
