LAWS(P&H)-2021-1-173

JOGA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On January 13, 2021
JOGA SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 3 as well as the order dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No. 2 by which, respondent No. 4 has been approved as a candidate for appointment as Lambardar for the Village Thakarwal, Tehsil Garhshankar, District Hoshiarpur.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was the initial choice for the post of Lambardar of Village Thakarwal and he was appointed as such by the Collector vide order dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure P-1). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 against the order dated 16.02.2016 (Annexure P-1) was allowed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 03.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) and respondent No. 4 was held to be more meritorious than the petitioner and was appointed as such. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab vide order dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-4). Learned counsel further submits that the order dated 03.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) as well as order dated 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) appointing respondent No. 4 as Lambardar are against the law and are liable to be set-aside.

(3.) Though, the challenge to the orders dated 03.02.2017 (Annexure P-2) and 02.12.2019 (Annexure P-4) have been made by the petitioner but no cogent ground except the fact that the petitioner was found suitable by the Collector, hence could not have been replaced by the Commissioner, has been raised. A bare perusal of the impugned orders would show that the authorities below have compared a number of aspects between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 before approving the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of the village. Not only respondent No. 4 is younger in age but is better qualified than the petitioner. These facts have been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner.