Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1349 (PNJ)

Sushil Kumar v. Financial Commissioner

2008-08-11

DAYA CHAUDHARY, SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2008
Judgment Daya Chaudhary, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 16.1.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala and order dated 20.5.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Haryana. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the death of Kreshan Chand, Lambardar of village Cholli, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamunanagar, the post of Lambardar fell vacant and the process for filling up the same was initiated. The Collector after considering the respective merits of the petitioner as well as of Respondent No. 4 appointed petitioner as Lambardar vide order dated 22.5.2007. The aforesaid order was challenged by respondent No. 4 by way of filing an appeal before the Commissioner, who vide order dated 16.1.2008 set aside the order passed by the Collector. The order passed by the Commissioner dated 16.1.2008 was further upheld by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 20.5.2008. 3. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector as he was found more meritorious than respondent No. 4 and the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner have reversed the order of Collector without giving any finding. It has also been argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is a settled law that the choice of Collector should not be interfered with by the appellate or the revisional authority and as such the order of the Collector has wrongly been set aside. Mr. Dinarpur further submitted that the order of Collector has been set aside only on the ground that the land of the petitioner, which has been transferred by his father in the name of the petitioner, has not been taken into consideration whereas it should have been taken into consideration. It has also been argued that order of the Collector has wrongly been set aside whereas a detailed speaking order has been passed by the Collector for appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar. 4. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders passed by the authorities below. It has also been argued that order of the Collector has wrongly been set aside whereas a detailed speaking order has been passed by the Collector for appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar. 4. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders passed by the authorities below. In the order passed by the Collector, a specific finding has been given that respondent No. 4 is having an edge over the petitioner on account of the fact that he is 12th class pass and has donated blood whereas the petitioner is only 10th class pass. The Commissioner while passing detailed order has specifically mentioned that respondent No. 4 was fulfilling all the qualifications at the time the order was passed by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner has also discussed the merits of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 4 in detail and has held that respondent No. 4 acquired land from his parents on 15.12.2006 and mutation in his favour was effected on 10.4.2007 whereas the petitioner acquired land in his name on 15.2.2006 and mutation was sanctioned on 5.5.2008 but it was after the relevant date. It is a settled law that suitability of the candidate is to be seen on the date of appointment of Lambardar and respondent No. 4 was more suitable and more meritorious than the petitioner at the time of appointment of Lambardar. 5. Although it is settled law that normally the choice of Collector is not to be interfered unless the same is perverse or contrary to rules but in the present case the Collector has wrongly arrived at the conclusion on the basis of land holdings subsequently transferred in the names of petitioner i.e. after the date of consideration of respective merits of all candidates that the petitioner was found more meritorious. 6. In view of the observations made above, we are of the view that choice of Collector has rightly been interfered with by the Commissioner as well as by the Financial Commissioner, as the same is not based on facts. The present petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.