KULWINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dtd. 31/5/2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3; order dtd. 11/2/2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No.2 and order dtd. 22/1/2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1 appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village Moor, H.B. No.22, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur.

(2.) Adumbrated facts of the case are that on the death of earlier Lambardar, namely, Roor Singh @ Aroor Singh of village Moor, Tehsil Batala, District Gurdaspur, the process for appointment of the new Lambardar was initiated. The proclamation was made in the village for inviting the applications from the interested candidates. In pursuance to the same, three applications were received from the candidates, namely, Kulwinder Singh i.e. the petitioner; Ajit Singh i.e. respondent No.4 and Rawail Singh i.e. respondent No.5. Character verification of their antecedents was conducted. On perusal of their applications, their age and qualification etc. were found as follows:

(3.) On evaluation of the inter se merits and demerits of all the candidates in fray, the Collector, Gurdaspur found respondent No.4, namely, Ajit Singh to be more meritorious and suitable and thus, appointed him as Lambardar of the village vide his order dtd. 31/5/2010. Aggrieved by the same, rest of two candidates, namely, Kulwinder Singh i.e. the petitioner and Rawail Singh i.e. respondent No.5 filed their independent appeals before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar, who decided both the appeals by a common order. The learned Commissioner on hearing all the parties and perusing the record, found no infirmity in the appointment made by the Collector and thus, dismissed both the appeals vide his order dtd. 11/2/2013. Being aggrieved, both Kulwinder Singh and Rawail Singh filed their independent revision petitions before the learned Financial Commissioner. The learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab on hearing all the parties and re-appreciating the record, finding no merit in the revision petitions, dismissed the same vide his order dtd. 22/1/2016 and thus, upheld the order passed by the Collector and the Commissioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.