KULDIP SINGH Vs. JAGJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Misc. No. 4907-LPA of 2013

(2.) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 24.1.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Civil Writ Petition No. 11633 of 2010, filed by respondent No. 1. Dispute therein pertains to post of Lambardar in village Noorpura, Tehsil and District Sangrur. On accrual of the post, applications were invited. Report was sought from the Field Revenue Staff and on receipt of report, appellant, respondent No. 1--Jagjit Singh, Sahib Singh and Lakhwinder Singh emerged as the contesting candidates. Taking note of comparative qualifications of all the four candidates, the Collector, vide order dated 6.11.2007, appointed respondent No. 1 as Lambardar in the village. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:-

(3.) Appellant's claim was rejected on a ground that he was involved in a dispute with some residents of the village. Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner. On 22.4.2008, the Commissioner, by taking note of arguments raised by the appellant and respondent No. 1, came to a conclusion that respondent No. 1 is more meritorious. All the lower revenue authorities have recommended his candidate and to the recommendation, so made, preference has rightly been given by the Deputy Commissioner. It was noted that he being son of a deceased Lambardar needs to be given some benefit. It was also observed that he has sufficient land in the village. It was further noted that the appellant was involved in litigation with some villagers. In revision, Financial commissioner reversed the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner by noting that the benefit has wrongly been given to respondent No. 1 of the hereditary claim. It was further said that in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. the appellant was exonerated. The above order was passed by ignoring settled principles of law that Collector's choice is to be respected unless there is material flaw on facts and in law. Respondent No. 1 came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 11633 of 2010, which was allowed vide order dated 24.1.2012. It was rightly said that the Financial Commissioner has not recorded a finding that order passed by the Collector is perverse in law or on facts. After noting comparative merits of the contesting candidates, it was observed as under:-