MANJIT KAUR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEAL), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 07.10.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.3 District Collector cum Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, order dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure P- 9) passed by respondent No.2 Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, and order dated 02.07.2014 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.1 Financial Commissioner, Punjab.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Balwinder Singh, Lambardar of village Bhairon Munna on 15.04.2009, applications were invited from interested persons by making publication/proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In response to the proclamation, two persons i.e. Petitioner and respondent No.4 applied for the post of Lambardar. After completion of all the formalities, matter came up for consideration before the Collector. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village. Aggrieved against the order of the Collector, respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner by order dated 04.01.2011 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to District Collector for fresh decision. On remand, after considering the comparative merits of both the candidates, Collector found respondent No.4 more suitable for the post of Lambardar and appointed him as such by order dated 07.10.2011 (Annexure P-7). Aggrieved against the order of the Collector, petitioner preferred appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed by order dated 14.03.2013 (Annexure P-9). Thereafter, petitioner filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, which has been dismissed by order dated 02.07.2014 (Annexure P-10). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that petitioner has been ignored only on the ground that she is a lady. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that petitioner is the wife of deceased Lambardar and is in a position to discharge her duties in the same capacity as a man can do. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that respondent No.4 is working at Ludhiana with C.S. Mechanical Works, therefore, he is not in a better position to perform the duties of Lambardar. He had not mentioned regarding his employment in the application for the post of Lambardar.