Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3059 (PNJ)

Gurmail Singh Lambardar v. State Of Punjab

2010-11-15

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JASBIR SINGH

body2010
Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Dispute in this appeal pertains to the post of Lambardar in Village Surapur, Tehsil and District Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar. 2. When vacancy for the above-said post had occurred, applications were invited to fill the same. Along with others, appellant and respondent No. 5 were the candidates. After getting report from the Field Revenue Staff, the Collector, vide order dated 30.01.2003, appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the Village. 3. Respondent No. 5 went in appeal, which was partly accepted. Appointment of the appellant was set aside and matter was remanded to the District Collector to decide it afresh. The Commissioner, in order dated 19.02.2004, has given the following finding :- "I have considered the arguments put forth by the parties and have also gone through the record. The District Collector has ignored the claim of the appellant on the sole ground that he is a Government employee for which reason it would be difficult for the villagers to meet him and further it would create problems for them to get their works done through him. The District Collector has omitted to discuss the superior claims of the appellant. The appellant is better educated than respondent No. 1 he holds more agricultural land in the village than respondent No. 1 and that he is more popular and influential in the village than respondent No. 1 being associated with various institutions/organizations. Also I could not find any material showing that the appellant is the Government employee. I further find no weight in the argument of respondent No. 1 that the appellant is posing himself as the Lambardar of the village and had been or is collecting Chowkidara. The receipts (Annexure D with the written arguments) are from Sh. Amarjit Singh and not from the appellant. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that the District Collector has not correctly appreciated the relative merits of the appellant while appointing respondent No. 1 as the new Lambardar of the village. Consequently, I partly accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order of the District Collector, Nawanshahr, and remand the case to the District Collector, Nawanshahr, for making his choice afresh in accordance with rules and facts. Parties are directed to appear before him on 25-3-2004." 4. Consequently, I partly accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order of the District Collector, Nawanshahr, and remand the case to the District Collector, Nawanshahr, for making his choice afresh in accordance with rules and facts. Parties are directed to appear before him on 25-3-2004." 4. The appellant went in revision before the Financial Commissioner, wherein a plea was raised that biological father and adoptive father of respondent No. 5 are different. Despite getting property from his adoptive father, respondent No. 5 is still claiming his biological father as his real father. 5. It was contention of the appellant that such a person cannot be termed as suitable for the post of Lambardar. The revision petition was dismissed by observing as under :- "Having considered rival contentions carefully. I am not inclined to interfere with the order of the Commissioner who has directed the District Collector to decide the matter afresh. The arguments raised on behalf of both the candidates in ROR Nos. 165/04 and 491/04 are essentially questions of fact i.e. whether the candidates are in private employment, whether this is true that Paramjit Singhs biological father and adoptive father are different etc. These questions are best considered and decided at the level of the District Collector. As such, there seems to be no infirmity in the remand order of the Commissioner." 6. It is apparent from the record that the question was kept open to be considered by the Collector at the time of fresh consideration, to select a candidate for the post of Lambardar. 7. By taking note of the above-said fact, the learned Single Judge, vide the impugned order dated 06.10.2010, disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner by opining that the Government service is not a disqualification to be appointed against the post of Lambardar. No view was expressed so far as the factum of respondent No. 5 giving wrong name of his father is concerned. The learned Single Judge also ordered that the appellant/petitioner shall continue to perform the duties of Lambardar till such time fresh order is passed in that regard. 8. We feel that the orders passed are perfectly justified and need no interference. The matter is still open. The appellant may raise all the grounds, which he has raised in this appeal, before the Collector. Dismissed.