SWARAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER APPEALS I PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the orders dated 23.11.2004, 10.8.2006 and 27.3.2008, passed by the District Collector, Ferozepur, Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur and the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab. The Collector, Ferozepur, invited applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar of Village Markhai, Tehsil Zira, Distt. Ferozepur. The contest was narrowed down to Swaran Singh petitioner, Jeon Singh respondent no.4 and Baldev Singh, respondent no.5. The Collector, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar, vide order dated 8.8.2001. Jeon Singh, respondent no.4 filed an appeal. Vide order dated 19.9.2002, the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, accepted the appeal and remitted the matter to the Collector, to decide the dispute afresh. The Collector reconsidered the respective merits of the parties and directed the appointment of Baldev Singh, respondent no.5, as Lambardar. The candidature of Jeon Singh was rejected, as he was found to have been convicted in a criminal case, whereas Swaran Singh was held to be less meritorious.

(2.) The petitioner and Jeon Singh filed separate appeals. The Commissioner accepted the appeals and once again remanded the matter to the Collector to decide the matter afresh. The Commissioner held that as Baldev Singh had not challenged the original order dated 8.8.2001, passed by the Collector, his candidature could not have been reconsidered, by the Collector. The Commissioner also held that as the deceased Lambardar was the grandfather of the petitioner, he was entitled to a preferential hereditary claim.

(3.) The Collector reconsidered the matter and once again appointed Baldev Singh. The petitioner and Jeon Singh,respondent no.4 filed two separate appeals, which were dismissed by the Commissioner on 10.8.2006. Respondent no.4, thereafter, filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, Chandigarh, which was dismissed on 27.3.2008. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as held by the Commissioner in his order dated 29.7.2004, Baldev Singh did not challenge the original order passed by the Collector appointing the petitioner, his case could not be reconsidered by the Collector after remand. It is further argued that the Collector should have accorded precedence to the hereditary claim of the petitioner, while appointing Baldev Singh. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders.