Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2282 (PNJ)

Gurmeet Singh v. Financial Commissioner

2010-08-10

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2010
JUDGMENT Mr. Rajive Bhalla, J. (Oral):- The petitioner challenges an order dated 23.12.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner, (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh, setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, appointing the petitioner as the Lambardar. 2. Pursuant to an order dated 29.03.2007, the Collector appointed respondent no.4 as the Lambardar. The Commissioner reversed this order by holding that the petitioner is better, educated, as respondent no.4 is semiliterate. The Financial Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Commissioner and restored the order passed by the Collector. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of literacy apart, the Financial Commissioner failed to discern that the Collector appointed respondent no.4 by granting preference to his hereditary claim. A Division Bench of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1973, P.L.J, 676 has held that appointment of a Lambardar on the basis of hereditary claim is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The order passed by the Collector is, therefore, perverse and could not be affirmed by the Financial Commissioner. 4. Counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that even if the hereditary claim is ignored, as respondent no.4 is a better candidate, the choice of the Collector must prevail. It is argued that though respondent no.4 is semiliterate, he can read and right Punjabi. In the absence of any educational qualification prescribed by the Rules, the better educational qualification of the petitioner is insufficient to reject the candidature of respondent no.4. 5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. Respondent no.4 was appointed as the Lambardar, by the Collector but his appointment was set aside by the Commissioner. While setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner and restoring the choice of the Collector, the Financial Commissioner lost sight of the fact that the District Collector, Ferozepur, had relied upon the hereditary claim of respondent no.4. A Division Bench of this Court, in Karnail Singh’s case (supra), has held that as hereditary claims, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, they have to be excluded from consideration. The Financial Commissioner failed to discern this error in the order passed by the Collector. 7. A Division Bench of this Court, in Karnail Singh’s case (supra), has held that as hereditary claims, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, they have to be excluded from consideration. The Financial Commissioner failed to discern this error in the order passed by the Collector. 7. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed , the order dated 23.12.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh, to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Chandigarh, on 04.10.2010. -------------------------