SURJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present intra Court appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 12.03.2013 passed in CWP No.25730 of 2012 titled Surjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others. The writ petition filed by the appellant, who is aggrieved against the order passed by the District Collector, appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar of Village Shamsabad, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar which was upheld by the revisional authority was subject matter which also did not meet success. Resultantly, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The main grievance of the appellant is that while passing the order dated 24.01.2006, he was never heard by the District Collector and only the private respondent was recommended for appointment. The grouse thus, is that the comparative merit of the appellant was never considered by the District Collector and appellant had been condemned unheard and has never been given an opportunity to contest for the said post.

(3.) A perusal of the writ petition filed would show that the post fell vacant on account of death of Darshan Singh and by way of publication, applications were invited and as many as 6 persons applied before the Naib Tehsildar, Nurmahal. One of the candidate withdrew in favour of the present appellant and the verification was got done from the police station and the candidates were found to be having a good character. The case was forwarded to the Naib Tehsildar wherein nobody put in appearance apart from the private respondent whose case was eventually recommended for appointment and after considering the merit, the District Collector passed the order appointing him as Lambardar on 24.01.2006. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Commissioner on 02.05.2006 and the revision petition was dismissed by Financial Commissioner on 23.10.2009. Thereafter, petitioner preferred a review petition through another counsel which was dismissed on 22.05.2012 on that ground that the same is not permissible and as such, not maintainable, and the said case was sought to be reopened on merits. The Learned Single Judge, after examining all these facts and the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant, distinguished the said judgments and came to the following conclusion: