SATWINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Lambardar inter alia on the ground that he is 65 years of age while petitioner is much younger. He has relied upon judgment of the apex court reported as Mahavir Singh v. Khiall Ram, : 2009(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 757 (SC).

(2.) PLEA has been opposed by counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 on the ground that choice of the Collector has to be given preference.

(3.) IT appears, after death of Bhagat Ram, process of filling up the post of Lambardar of village Nauneetpur, District Hoshiarpur was initiated. Ten persons applied. Naib Tehsildar recommended the name of petitioner for the post. Sub Divisional Magistrate, however, recommended name of respondent No. 2. After considering recommendations, Collector appointed respondent No. 2 as the new Lambardar in place of Bhagat Ram. Aggrieved, order was challenged before the Commissioner who accepted the appeal. On a revision being preferred by respondent No. 2, order of Commissioner was set -aside. The Financial Commissioner observed that availability of the petitioner in the village would be doubtful he being a taxi driver. A perusal of the order, however, shows that issue regarding preference, if any, to be given to the petitioner he being younger in age, has not been dealt with. Matter is, thus, remitted to the same authority for decision afresh after hearing the parties and considering judgment in Mahavir Singh's case (supra). Impugned order is, thus, set -aside. Writ petition is allowed in these terms.