JASPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FATHER of Respondent No. 5 Sukhdev Singh was a Lambardar of village Bhilowal, District Patiala. He made an application requesting that he was not able to discharge his functions due to old age and handicap. Sukhdev Singh accordingly submitted his resignation, which was accepted. Proclamation was done in the village by Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Respondent No. 5 filed an application after completion of necessary formalities. His name was recommended. Collector, Patiala, however, accepted the objection filed by the Petitioner to the effect that he could not apply for the post of Lambardar due to lack of proper proclamation. This objection as raised had earlier not been considered proper by Assistant Collector Ist Grade.

(2.) ON the direction of the Collector, a fresh proclamation was made in the village. Respondent No. 5 Harbhajan Singh filed an application. His name was recommended by Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Assistant Collector Ist Grade recommended the name of Petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner has raised two -fold submission before me. He would first submit that the recommendation made by Assistant Collector Ist Grade was not given due consideration and weightage and was wrongly ignored. The counsel contends that the Petitioner certainly has a better merit and the Collector was not justified in appointing Respondent No. 5 as Lambardar. Counsel would submit that it was because of the design by the father of the Petitioner that he resigned to ensure appointment of his son as Lambardar. Hereditary claim, which has been taken into consideration to tilt the balance in favour of the Respondent, would not be proper, says the counsel. Counsel further contents that the Petitioner is much more popular as 31 persons had given affidavits in his favour in addition to a large number of persons having signed to plead that Petitioner be appointed being more suitable.