KARNAIL SINGH Vs. SHER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a appeal against the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dated 19.6.2001 vide which he accepted an appeal against the order of the District Collector, Ludhiana dated 10.11.1998, and appointed the present respondent as Lambardar of village Cheema, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana. The details of the case are contained in the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner and need not be gone into again.

(2.) ON behalf of the appellant it was argued that the appellant was an eligible candidate for the post of Lambardar, and being the most suitable candidate was appointed so by the District Collector. However, the Commissioner set aside this order and appointed the respondent Sher Singh simply on the ground that Sher Singh was a better candidate. It was urged that it is a well established principle that in Lambardari matters the choice of the Collector was of primary importance and was not to be interfered with unless there was some illegality, material irregularity or infirmity in the order. That was not so in the present case, since the Collector has made his choice after due application of mind on the facts of the case after duly assessing merits of the two candidates. The Commissioner could not have interfered in the matter simply on the ground that he differed with the choice of the Collector. On merits it was argued that Shri Karnail Singh was a more suitable candidate being young and energetic, being studied upto class 7th, the owner of moveable and immoveable property in the village and the nephew of the deceased Lambardar and also grand-son of the earlier deceased Lambardar. He had the support of community as well as Gram Panchayat. As regard the respondent it was observed that the respondent was a less suitable candidate on merits as well. The respondent, in the previous proceedings, portrayed himself as being son of the deceased Lambardar Gurcharan Singh whereas in fact he was the son of Jagir Singh. This fact had been observed by Hon'ble Financial Commissioner (Appeal) while remanding the case vide her order dated 18.11.1997. He had therefore attempted to mislead revenue authorities. It was urged that on the above grounds the appeal be accepted and the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, be set aside and the order of the District Collector, Ludhiana be upheld.

(3.) I have gone through the case and heard the arguments of both the counsels. I find myself in agreement with the counsel for the appellant that this is not a case in which any interference on the part of the Commissioner was called for. The Collector had applied his mind to the facts, properly assessed the merits of the candidates, and concluded that the appellant was a more suitable candidate. It is an established principle that in Lambardari matters, the Collector's choice should not be interfered with unless it suffers from some material irregularity, or infirmity. In the absence of this there is no cause for the Commissioner to interfere in the choice of the Collector. In support of this, a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was referred to by the counsel for the appellant i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 19720 of 2001 reported in 2002(1) PLJ-page-406-409. It is clear that if the order of the Collector is to be interfered with it must contain some patent irregularity, illegality or infirmity. The Commissioner cannot substitute his choice for that of the Collector simply because considers a particular candidate to be a more suitable candidate. In view of the above, the appeal is accepted and the order of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala is set aside and the order of the District Collector, Ludhiana is upheld. To be communicated. Appeal allowed.