JASWINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 16.07.2013 (Annexure P -1) passed by respondent No. 3 -District Collector, Barnala whereby respondent No. 4 -Satnam Singh has been appointed as Lambardar of village Hardaspura and the orders dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure P -2) and 24.09.2014 (Annexure P -3) passed by respondent No. 2 -Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and respondent No. 1 -Financial Commissioner, Punjab, respectively whereby appeal and revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.07.2013 have been dismissed.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are to the effect that on account of death of Gurdev Singh, Lambardar of village Hardaspura, Tehsil and District Barnala, post of Lambardar fell vacant. Respondent No. 3 - District Collector, Barnala directed the subordinate authority i.e. Assistant Collector -Iind Grade (Naib Tehsildar) Mehal Kalan for making proclamation in village Hardaspura, Tehsil and District Barnala for inviting applications for the post of Lambardar. Last date for inviting applications was fixed as 18.12.2012. In pursuance of proclamation, four applications were received within stipulated time from persons namely (1) Satnam Singh son of Raj Singh, (2) Gurpreet Singh son of Jeet Singh, (3) Kuldeep Singh son of Bhag Singh and (4) Kuldeep Singh son of Buta Singh, residents of village Hardaspura, however, application of petitioner -Jaswinder singh son of Karnail Singh was received on 03.01.2013, after last date for filing application. In pursuance of the recommendations made by the Assistant Collector -IInd Grade (Naib Tehsildar), Mehalkalan and Assistant Collector -Ist Grade (Tehsildar), Barnala in favour of respondent No. 4 -Satnam Singh, respondent No. 3 - District Collector, Barnala came to the conclusion that respondent No. 4 - Satnam Singh is the most suitable candidate and thereby appointed him as Lambardar. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No. 2 -Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.01.2014 (Annexure P -2). Against that, the petitioner filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab which has also been dismissed vide impugned order dated 24.09.2014 (Annexure P -3). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No. 4 and reference has been made to para no.3 of petition where comparative merit chart of petitioner and respondent No. 4 has been shown which reads as under: