GURBACHAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and respondent No. 4, amongst others, were the contenders for the office of village Headman. Vide order dated April 3, 1998 the Collector selected and appointed the 4th respondent. Aggrieved by the order the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner on August 27, 1999. The petitioner filed a revision petition. It has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated August 10, 2000. Hence this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner prays that the orders, copies of which have been produced as Annexures P1, P2 and P4, be quashed. He also alleges that respondent No. 4 should not have been appointed as a criminal case had been registered against him vide F.I.R. dated June 29, 2000.

(3.) THE power to select and appoint a village Headman vests primarily with the Collector. He had admittedly considered the claim of the petitioner as also the other candidates. On consideration of the matter he had found that the 4th respondent is "more meritorious, educated and fit candidate...". Thus, he selected him. The petitioner's appeal was considered by the Commissioner and the findings recorded by the Collector were affirmed. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it was held that "the duties of Conductor keep changing and in case he is put on some long distance route then even if he is ordinarily resident in the village, he would be away for extended periods. This would seriously handicap him in discharging his duties as Lambardar". Thus, the order of the Collector was affirmed. Even the Financial Commissioner has found that the view taken by the Collector was not such as to call for any interference.