SATNAM SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is assailing order dated 14.5.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby dismissing writ petition challenging the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

(2.) BRIEF facts present case are that a vacancy of Lamberdar accrued in Village Takipur, Tehsil and District Sangrur due to the sudden demise of Waryam Singh, the then Lamberdar. The petitioner applied to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangrur, seeking appointment as Lamberdar. Four candidates were in contest for the post of Lamberdar. However, Milkha Singh withdrew his candidature in favour of Nirmal Singh. Antecedents of all the three candidates were got verified from the police and recommendations were made by the authorities as per rules. The Naib Tehsildar as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate recommended the name of Nirmal Singh for appointment as Lamberdar. Thereafter, Sadhu Singh also did not pursue his candidature and ultimately contest was between the petitioner and respondent No.3. The Collector having consider the inter se merit between the petitioner and respondent No.3 appointed respondent No.3 as Lamberdar vide order dated 8.8.2000. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala. The Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 8.1.2001 set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the case for fresh decision after considering the merits and demerits of both the candidates. After remand, the Collector again appointed respondent No.3 as Lamberdar vide order dated 28.6.2001. Again, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commission; the Divisional Commissioner set aside the order of the Collector dated 28.6.2001 and again remanded the matter to the Collector vide order dated 18.4.2002. After the second remand, the Collector appointed the petitioner as Lamberdar vide order dated 25.6.2002; respondent No.3 filed an appeal before the Divisional Commission, who dismissed the appeal of respondent No.3 vide order dated 30.10.2002. Respondent No.3 thereafter, filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner; revision filed by respondent No.3 was allowed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 10.9.2004; the Financial Commissioner set aside the appointment of the petitioner and appointed respondent No.3 as Lamberdar after comparing the inter se merit between the petitioner and respondent No.3. Learned Single Judge agreed with the order of Financial Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) THE Financial Commissioner has observed that on the earlier two occasions, the Collector after considering the merits and demerits of both the candidates appointed respondent No.3 as Lamberdar, but on remanding the case by the Commissioner, the Collector on the third occasion, appointed the petitioner as Lamberdar without evaluating merits and demerits of the candidates and the Commissioner upheld the same. THE Financial Commissioner has also held that even if violation of the prohibitory orders under Section 141 Cr.P.C. is not a serious offence for which the present petitioner was challaned under the IPC and it does not debar the present petitioner from being appointed as Lamberdar however, when a person of clear and clean image is available then he should be given preference. THE Financial Commissioner further observed that since respondent No.3 has clear image and was earlier appointed as Lamberdar twice by the Collector, hence without assigning any special reason or subsequent changed circumstances in the third round, the Collector was not justified to appoint the petitioner as Lamberdar. Learned Single Judge did not interfere with the view taken by the Financial Commissioner.