GURBAX SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Much too often agitated dispute, in this case, again relates to appointment of Lambardar of village Happowal, Tehsil and District SBS Nagar. The process of appointment of the village Lambardar commenced in the year 2004 on the death of previous Lambardar Hardial Singh. Due process for appointment of the Lambardar was followed. The petitioner was also one of the candidate. He is an ex-serviceman and has retired from the Army in the rank of Havaldar. He claims to have participated in the 1971 Indo Pak War and has statedly earned four medals. As per the petitioner, he fulfills the requisite qualifications also. Respondent No. 3 was the other candidate, who was competing with the petitioner. The Collector considered the claim of both the aspirants and decided to appoint the petitioner. While doing so, he found that respondent No. 3 was the NRI and had been frequently visiting and living abroad, which may cause inconvenience to the villagers. The respondent impugned the choice so exercised by the Collector. During this time, sanad in favour of the petitioner was also issued on 14.12.2005. In appeal, the Commissioner, however, has set aside the choice exercised by the Collector. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner.

(2.) Notice of motion, in this case, was issued. Reply is filed by the contesting respondent No. 3. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 has extensively referred to the observation made by the Commissioner while interfering with the choice exercised by the Collector. It is noticed that what went against the respondent is his status as NRI and the frequent visit to foreign country. As viewed by the Commissioner, this would not be any disqualification.

(3.) The plea raised against the petitioner is that his son is involved in criminal activities which was not unduly taken into consideration but still the Commissioner decided to interfere with the choice exercised by the Collector and appointed respondent No. 3 instead. Not much consideration weighed with the Commissioner in regard to the status of the petitioner as Ex-serviceman. This aspect was ignored by the Commissioner on the ground that benefit of this would accrue only if other merits are equal. The Financial Commissioner has also upheld the order passed by the Collector. In addition, the Financial Commissioner has noticed that respondent No. 3 has an administrative experience being Secretary of village Cooperative Society. The Financial Commissioner also considered the ground of petitioner being ex-serviceman, which he found not to be sufficient to outweigh the other merits. The reasons, for which the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner decided to interfere with the choice exercised with the Collector, would show that they have primarily done so by comparing the relative merits of both the candidates under consideration. That, in my view, would not be strictly in conformity with the law, which has been consistently laid down by this Court from time to time. It has been held by this Court in large number of judgments that the choice exercised by the Collector can be interfered with only if it is found to be arbitrary or capricious or suffers from such wise like want of jurisdiction etc. There is no finding recorded by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner that the choice, which was exercised by the Collector, suffers from any such infirmity. The Collector has to take work from the Lambardar and that is why his choice is generally preferred and is considered almost final subject to inference if it found to be suffering from any arbitrariness or any such reason.