The Division Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging orders that set aside the petitioner's appointment as a Lambardar, holding that age and encroachment were valid grounds for rejection.
The writ petition was dismissed with no merit found in the petitioner's contention.
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.
CWP No. 16009 of 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 16009 of 2009 Date of Decision: January 23, 2012
Bawa Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. H.K. Aurora, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Virk, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 22.05.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab, and order dated 26.02.2007 (Annexure P/2) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby order dated 19.10.2006 (Annexure P/3) passed by the District Collector, Jalandhar appointing the petitioner as Lambardar has been set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that a post of Lambardar of Village Jalpot, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, has fallen vacant due to death of Naginder Singh, previous Lambardar. The Naib Tehsildar initiated proceedings for filling up the post of Lambardar. A proclamation was made
CWP No. 16009 of 2009 2
in the village. In pursuance of that, Bawa Singh, Raghbir Singh, Mohinder Singh and Surjit Singh submitted their applications before the Naib Tehsildar. However, Surjit Singh did not contest. The character and antecedents of the other candidates were got verified from the police. After that, the Naib Tehsildar recommended the name of the petitioner and sent the file to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The Sub Divisional Magistrate also concurred with the recommendation of the Naib Tehsildar. The District Collector after considering the qualifications and comparative merit of the above said three candidates, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the Village vide order dtaed 19.10.2006 (Annexure P/3) by holding that Bawa Singh (petitioner) is of 62 years of age and is mature than the other candidates and he is an ex-serviceman and his qualifications are equal to the other candidates, besides that lower revenue authorities have recommended his name. He is also a member Panchayat.
Raghubir Singh (Respondetn No.4) preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 26.02.2007 (Annexure P/2), set aside the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that respondent No.4 – Raghubir Singh is about 52 years of age and is having Diploma in Arts and Crafts Teacher Training Course. Respondent No.4 is a well educated and has more land than the petitioner. The petitioner has failed to deny that he had not obtained Meter Connection from the P.S.E.B., Daroli Kalan and the same was disconnected on 30.12.2005. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred revision petition before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner vide order dated 22.05.2009 (Annexure P/1) dismissed the revision petition by observing that respondent No.4 – Raghbir Singh is about 12 years younger than the
3
CWP No. 16009 of 2009
petitioner and is Drawing and Craft Teacher in a High School and is having more land; whereas the petitioner is of advanced age, age is one of the criteria which is to be taken into account. As such, the order of the Collector was set aside and the order passed by the Commissioner being in accordance with law, was affirmed by the Financial Commissioner. Hence, this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and he deserves to be appointed as a Lambardar of the village and choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.4.
I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am not in agreement to accept this contention. Age is of the relevant factor which is required to be taken into consideration. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and Others, reported in 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 757 , wherein the observation in one of the judgments have been made that a person of 60 years of age should not be appointed. In the present case, respondent No.4 is about 10 years younger than the petitioner. The petitioner is a graduate; whereas respondent No.4 is a matriculate. The petitioner had encroached upon the patwar khana in the village and got the electricity meter installed there which has been disconnected by the Electricity Department. The Commissioner rightly set aside the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of the village. The Financial Commissioner
CWP No. 16009 of 2009 4
affirmed the order of the Commissioner. It is true that choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside, but if the circumstances warrant, then the revisional and appellate authority has power to look into those circumstances. The Commissioner set aside the appointment of the petitioner on valid grounds that the petitioner is of advance age and had also encroached upon the Patwari Khana. The Financial Commissioner affirmed the order of the Commissioner.
In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner.
No merit.
Dismissed.
No order as to costs.
January 23, 2012 ( Paramjeet Singh ) vkd Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate and revisional authorities acted correctly in setting aside the petitioner's appointment as Lambardar based on age and encroachment.
Whether the petitioner's status as an ex-serviceman warrants intervention in the administrative decision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and OthersReferred¶26
Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and Others, reported in 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 757
Bawa Singh
State of Punjab
Raghubir Singh
Commissioner, Jalandhar
Financial Commissioner
District Collector, Jalandhar
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
