SHER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Due to death of Lambardar of village Islampur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, proclamation was made for filling up the vacant post. In response, two applications were received. Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar recommended name of the petitioner for the post. Collector accepted the recommendations and appointed petitioner as Lambardar. Appointment of petitioner was challenged by respondent No. 4 before the Commissioner, Patiala Division who accepted the appeal and directed that fresh proclamation be issued for inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Operative part of the order reads as under:--

(2.) Aforesaid order was unsuccessfully challenged before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. Aggrieved, present petition has been filed. Petitioner has relied upon judgment delivered by this court in Bhag Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Haryana, 2001 1 RCR(Civ) 9. I am, however, of the view that said judgment can be of no help to the petitioner. In the instant case, serious defect has been found with the proclamation process. Wider choice was, thus, not available to the authority at the time of selection. A perusal of order passed by Collector shows that he merely accepted the recommendation of the lower revenue officials without considering their relative merits. It is evident that in the absence of proper proclamation, number of applications would be less leaving narrow choice for the Collector to appoint a suitable person. After process for filling up post of this nature is initiated, due proclamation is necessary. Hoshiar Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, 2013 3 RCR(Civ) 834. In case residents of the village are oblivious of the fact that process for filling up the vacant post of Lambardar has been initiated, they cannot be expected to apply for the post. In such circumstances, appointment would be vitiated. Admittedly, in the instant case only two applications were received and the Collector merely accepted recommendations of the lower revenue officials and appointed the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Writ petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.