TRIPAT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against an order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court on 13.09.2013 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and that of respondent No. 3-Narinder Kumar was allowed. As a consequence thereof, appointment of Narinder Kumar as Lambardar was restored. The learned Collector appointed Narinder Kumar as Lambardar, inter alia, finding that the behavior of the present appellant is not good towards the residents of the village. The character certificate submitted by the appellant does not mention the village or the city from where the appellant has studied and that irregularities were noticed in the working of a ration depot held by him. Consequently, Narinder Kumar was appointed as Lambardar keeping in view the recommendations of the Assistant Collector IInd Grade and Assistant Collector Ist Grade. Such order was set aside by learned Commissioner holding that both the candidates are unfit. In respect of Narinder Kumar it was observed that he is a clerk of a lawyer, therefore, he will not be available to the villagers.

(2.) Aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner, the appellant and Narinder Kumar filed appeals but both appeals were dismissed. Further revision by both the candidates also met the same fate. However, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and that of Narinder Kumar was allowed.

(3.) The learned Collector has recorded categorical reasons not to appoint the appellant as Lambardar. It is consistent view of all the authorities in respect of the appellant that he is not suitable candidate. On the other hand, Narinder Kumar was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector, but such appointment has been interfered with on untenable ground that he would not be in position to discharge his duties being clerk of an Advocate. The fact that the Courts and Administrative Offices are only 4-5 KMs show that Narinder Kumar would be available in the village and also facilities the tasks of the villagers in the Administrative and Judicial work. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by learned Single Bench of this Court which may warrant interference in the present Letters Patent Appeal.