BACHAN SINGH Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was one of the candidates for the post of Lambardar for village Bhai Rupa, sub tehsil Phool, district Bhatinda. In that village two predominant communities reside, that is, Jats and Ramgarhias. There were five candidates from the Jat community and five from the Ramgrhia community. Sapura Singh Kamgarhia was selected Lambardar by the Collector by order dated March 9, 1964. The Commissioner did riot agree with that order and preferred Sarwan Singh. The matter went to the Financial Commissioner, who set aside the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner and remanded the case to the Collector to make a fresh and more suitable choice. After, remand the Collector appointed Darshan Singh, respondent, as the Lambardar -Darshan Singh belongs to the Ramagarbia community while the petitioner belongs to the Jat community. The Collector considered the merits of each candidate from the two communities and came to the conclusion that the appointment should be made from amongst the Ramgarhias and respondent 4 was the best suitable person. That order was passed on October 19,196a and was challenged in an appeal before the Commissioner, who dismissed it on January 21,1966. Five revisions were filed against that order before the Financial Commissioner, which were all rejected on June 22, 1966. The present petition is directed against that order.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 15(e) of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules was violative of the provisions of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the lambardar holds a civil post under the Government as has been held by Narula, J., in Rulia Ram v. The State of Punjab 1967 Cur L.J. 467 and while appointing a lambardar no discrimination on the ground of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or nay of them can be made. I issued notice to the Advocate General on whose behalf the learned Deputy -Advocate Genera) has appeared. Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules is as under -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has then submitted that the Collector first considered the merits of each candidate but while making the selection decided that the candidate should be from the Ramgarhia community. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner agreed with him. According to the learned counsel, the approach made by these officers to the appointment of respondent 4 was on the basis of community. I regret, I cannot agree with the learned counsel. Other factors were also taken into consideration as prescribed in Rule 15 ibid. There were ten candidates in all five from the Jat community and five from the Ramgarhia Community, While selecting the suitable candidate, an additional weight was given to the fact that the Ramgarhia community was more predominant than the Jat community This was the not only consideration but there were other considerations Also like age property and the influence of the community from which the candidate was selected. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order appointing respondent 4 as the lambardar of the village nor can it be said that the order of collector was illegally upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. I consequently find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed but without any order as to costs.