Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 321 (PNJ)

Om Parkash v. Financial Commissioner

2012-02-23

PARAMJEET SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Paramjeet Singh, J.: - This order of mine shall dispose of two civil writ petitions i.e. CWP No.2249 of 2011 and CWP No.4614 of 2011 filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India as these arise out of same impugned order i.e. order dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure P-5) passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab in a matter relating to appointment of Lambardar. However, the facts are being taken from CWP No.2249 of 2011. 2. Brief facts of the case are that due to death of Puran Singh, previous Lambardar of village Jamalke, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur, a post of Lambardar fell vacant. To fill up the post of Lambardar, proclamation was made in the village and applications were invited through the circle revenue authorities. In pursuance of the proclamation 14 candidates submitted their applications. The Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar Fazilka recommended the name of Baldev Raj. However SDO (Civil) recommended the name of Lajinder Singh and ultimately case was sent to the District Collector. The District Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found Lajinder Singh fit and suitable candidate and appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 05.02.2008 (P-1). Against that order, four separate appeals were filed before the Commissioner. The Commissioner vide order dated 04.11.2008 (P-3) accepted the appeal of Om Parkash and appointed him as Lambardar of the Village. However, the appeals filed by Harbans Lal, Bhagwan Singh and Surinder Pal were dismissed. The order of the Commissioner was challenged before the Financial Commissioner by way of four separate RORs. The Financial Commissioner after appreciating the evidence accepted the revision petition of Harbans Lal vide order dated 09.10.2010 (Annexure P-5) and appointed him as Lambardar of the village by setting aside the order dated 04.11.2008 (P-3) of the Commissioner. The instant writ petitions have been filed before this Court by Om Parkash and Lajinder Singh. 3. Reply on behalf of respondent No..4 has been filed in Civil Writ Petition No.2249 of 2011. However, no reply has been filed in Civil Writ Petition No.4614 of 2011. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Mr. J.S. Thind, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not a defaulter of any loan. The Financial Commissioner has recorded a wrong finding while setting aside the order of the Commissioner. Mr. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Mr. J.S. Thind, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is not a defaulter of any loan. The Financial Commissioner has recorded a wrong finding while setting aside the order of the Commissioner. Mr. Thind submitted that Om Parkash is 38 years old; is having 7 acres of land and is 10 class pass. He had taken a loan from a bank, which he is paying in installments. 6. In reply, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Harbans Lal states that Om Parkash has rightly been rejected by the Financial Commissioner. He is a defaulter of Village Cooperative Society and he was caught ticketless while traveling. 7. Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel for Lajinder Singh states that Lajinder Singh is 36 years old, is having 5 acres 6 kanal of land and is matric fail. Learned counsel further states District Collector after appreciating the comparative merit found Lajinder Singh to be fit and suitable candidate and had rightly appointed Lajinder Singh as Lambardar of the village. The Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have not applied their mind while setting aside the order of the District Collector. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Thind, learned counsel for Om Parkashpetitioner states that there are two criminal cases pending against Lajinder Singh. The Commissioner after taking into consideration the facts that Lajinder Singh has been involved in two criminal cases and is a matric fail, has accepted the appeal of Om Parkash. 9. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 10. The Financial Commissioner while setting aside the order of the Commissioner has not recorded any finding with regard to perversity in the order. The Financial Commissioner has set aside the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner specifically stating therein that Harbans Singh is more meritorious candidate. However, the Collector ignored Harbans Lal on the ground that he has no experience. Admittedly, no question of experience arises for appointment to the post of Lambardar since the applications are invited for the first time. Only experience can be considered of a person who is appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar. None of the candidates has produced on record any document to show that they are having experience of Lambardar. 11. Admittedly, no question of experience arises for appointment to the post of Lambardar since the applications are invited for the first time. Only experience can be considered of a person who is appointed as Sarbrah Lambardar. None of the candidates has produced on record any document to show that they are having experience of Lambardar. 11. On these circumstances, the Financial Commissioner has set aside the order of the Collector and the Commissioner which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. There is misreading of evidence on record by the Financial Commissioner which amounts to perversity. 12. Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case and particularly the facts that Lajinder Singh has been involved in two criminal cases; Om Parkash is stated to be defaulter of Village Cooperative Society; a criminal case was pending against Surinder Pal; Bhagwan Singh is also a defaulter and Harbans Lal has only been ignored on the ground of non-experience of Lambardari work, I deem it fit and appropriate to dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the District Collector to decide the case afresh. Ordered accordingly. Impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded to the District Collector for fresh decision. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the District Collector on 26.03.2012. Disposed of. --------------------