SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for the post of Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of village Khanpur, Tehsil and District Ludhiana after the demise of Kehar Singh. Name of the petitioner was recommended by the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate after comparing the merits of all the 4 applicants and was ultimately chosen by the Collector, Ludhiana, vide his order dated 15.09.2006 observing that "firstly he is working as agriculturist and can be available at all the times being permanently residing in the village, secondly more respectable persons of the village have recommended his name, thirdly he is more qualified than others as he is matriculate and later on passed graduation in the army, fourthly he retired from the Army after serving the nation and fifthly his name has been recommended by the revenue authorities.

(2.) Appointment of the petitioner was challenged by respondent no.3 in appeal before the Commissioner, which though was dismissed while observing that "the perusal of the record shows that the respondent is more meritorious than the appellant, therefore, the appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed", but the matter was remanded back to the Collector on 18.12.2007 with the direction that "the point of availability of the appointed candidate may be considered again". This order was not challenged by way of further appeal by the petitioner.

(3.) After remand, the Collector recommended the name of respondent no.3 vide his order dated 09.06.2009 by not only taking into consideration the issue of his availability in which it was observed that the petitioner is employed as Security Guard in the B.S.N.L. and is not available in the village but also the FIR No.143 dated 27.04.2001, registered under Sections 324, 326 and 34 IPC, at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, and FIR No.88 dated 21.05.2007, registered under Sections 323, 324, 506 and 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana, and observed that respondent no.3 is more capable than the petitioner because there is no criminal case against him. The petitioner challenged the order of the Collector by way of appeal which was dismissed on 01.09.2009 on the same ground and ultimately his revision filed before the Financial Commissioner was also dismissed on 16.03.2010 in limine.