Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 468 (PNJ)

Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-04-09

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

body2013
Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.;— The present petition is directed against the order dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab-respondent No.2, thereby setting aside the order dated 19.2.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division-respondent No.3, restoring the order dated 4.3.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, Sangrur-respondent No.4, vide which respondent No.5 was appointed as Lambardar. Brief facts of the case are that consequent upon the death of Sh. Mal Singh, Lambardar of village Tibba, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur, on 2.11.2001, one post of Lambardar fell vacant in the village of the parties. Proceedings were initiated to fill up this post. Tehsildar as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate recommended name of respondent No.5 for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Consequently, after examining the comparative merits of the candidates, the District Collector, Sangrur, came to the conclusion that respondent No.5 was the best candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Accordingly, vide his order dated 4.3.2003 (Annexure P-1), respondent No.5 was appointed as Lambardar. Dissatisfied, the petitioner filed his appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, who accepted the same by passing a totally non speaking and cryptic order dated 19.2.2004 (Annexure P- 2). Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, respondent No.5 approached the Financial Commissioner by way of revision petition, who allowed the revision of respondent No.5, setting aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner and the order passed by the District Collector, appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar was restored, vide order dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-3). Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Collector as well as the Financial Commissioner have proceeded on an erroneous approach while not appreciating better candidature of the petitioner. He further submits that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, was based on true facts and circumstances of the case, but the same was illegally set aside by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-3). He next contended that in view of better merit, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Lambardar in place of respondent No.5. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the writ petition. He next contended that in view of better merit, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as Lambardar in place of respondent No.5. Finally, he prays for setting aside the impugned order by allowing the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that present writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed, for the following more than one reasons. A combined reading of all the three orders passed by the respondent revenue authorities contained in Annexures P-1 to P-3, would show that the Financial Commissioner has rightly set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, while passing his order dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-3), thereby restoring the order passed by the District Collector, Sangrur. In fact, before passing his order dated 4.3.2003, the District Collector, Sangrur has considered each and every material aspect of the matter, including comparative merits of the candidates. Respondent No.5 was recommended by all the lower revenue authorities for appointment to the post of Lambardar, as recorded by the District Collector in his order. Respondent No.5 was 8th class pass and he was well versed with the working of Lambardar. On the other hand, the petitioner had no land on the date he submitted his application for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Report dated 25.11.2002 of Halqa Patwari was available to this effect. Respectables of the village also recorded their statements in favour of respondent No.5. Further, the petitioner does not reside in village Tibba. In fact, he was living in village Phul Kheda, now Malout, whereas respondent No.5 was resident of village Tibba. Petitioner was married in village Tibba and was living in the house of his father-in-law. However, he was a voter of his original village Phul Kheda. His name was registered in ward No. 11, Malout Nagar council, particulars whereof have been mentioned by the District Collector. In this view of the matter, the Collector came to the just conclusion appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar. However, the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, passed a cryptic and non speaking order without pointing out any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Collector. In this view of the matter, the Collector came to the just conclusion appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar. However, the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, passed a cryptic and non speaking order without pointing out any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Collector. The order passed by the District Collector was illegally set aside by the Commissioner without recording any finding much less cogent findings thereof, against respondent No.5. Further, the Financial Commissioner rightly interfered and set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, restoring the order passed by the District Collector. Thus, the District Collector as well as the Financial Commissioner committed no error of law while passing their respective impugned orders. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in either of the impugned orders passed by the District Collector or Financial Commissioner, which is sine qua non for interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, particularly in the cases of this nature. Moreover, no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the petitioner. Further, it is the settled proposition of law that ordinarily, choice of the Collector, in the cases of appointment of Lambardar, should not be interfered with by the higher revenue authorities. Although it is not an absolute rule, yet choice of the Collector would be interfered with only when the same is found to be suffering from patent illegality or perversity. In the present case, the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, illegally interfered with the order passed by the District Collector without recording any finding to the effect that the same was found to be suffering from any patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error. In such a situation, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner was an order without any jurisdiction. It was rightly set aside by the Financial Commissioner. No other argument was raised Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is bereft of any merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is ordered to be dismissed.