AMRIK SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dtd. 5/1/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the order dtd. 20/1/2020 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, allowing the appeal of respondent No.6 - Sube Singh by setting aside the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, dtd. 20/9/2016/1/11/2016 (Annexure P-8), has been dismissed.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.6 - Sube Singh was appointed as Headman (Lambardar) of villaage Mehjitpur, Tehsil Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, by the Deputy Commissioner, Kapurthala, despite the fact that the appellant was more qualified, younger in age and bearing good moral character as compared to respondent No.6 apart from having his hereditary claim on the post of Lambardar. It is also asserted that the petitioner was owner of more land as compared to the said respondent and therefore, in all respects, was a better candidate and therefore, should have been appointed to the post of Lambardar. As regards respondent No.6, he asserts that the said respondent was involved in an FIR, in which, because of the compromise which had been entered into between the parties, he had been acquitted and therefore, the same cannot be said to be a honourable acquittal attaching stigma to his character. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, has failed to take into consideration these facts and has simply proceeded to uphold the order passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. He, thus, contends that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, dtd. 5/1/2021, deserves to be set aside as also the order dtd. 20/1/2020 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, setting aside the well-reasoned and justifiable order dated 20.09/.2016/1/11/2016 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, appointing the appellant to the post of Lambardar.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance have gone through the records of the appeal but are unable to accept the prayer as made by the appellant.