GURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 5.12.2014 (Annexure P-7), passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 1.1.2013 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent No. 2, whereby respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lamberdar by setting aside the order dated 23.11.2010, (Annexure P-1), passed by respondent No. 3, appointing the petitioner as Lamberdar of Village Bajwara.

(2.) Upon the death of Pal Singh, Lamberdar of Village Bajwara, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur on 26.7.2009, the post of Lamberdar fell vacant and the applications were invited to fill up this vacancy through proclamation. In response to the proclamation, ten persons namely, S/Sh. Charanjit Lal, Munish Kumar, Raj Kumar, Gurdev Singh, Jai Pal, Parveen Kumar, Dilbagh Singh, Manjit Kumar, Phool Chand and Gurinder Singh applied for the vacant post. The verification with regard to the antecedents of the applicants was carried out. The Naib Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur, afforded personal hearing to the prospective candidates with a direction to appear before the Court of Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur. S/Sh. Charanjit Lal, Munish Kumar, Gurdev Singh, Parveen Kumar, Dilbagh Singh, Phool Chand and Gurinder Singh appeared before the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur, whereas S/Sh. Raj Kumar, Jai Pal and Manjit Kumar did not come present and they were proceeded ex-parte. The Ld. Tehsildar after affording personal hearing to the candidates, recommended the name of the petitioner and sent to the District Collector, Hoshiarpur. S/Sh. Munish Kumar, Gurdev Singh, Parveen Kumar and Dilbagh Singh were not present in the Court of District Collector, Hoshiarpur, hence they were proceeded ex-parte. The District Collector, Hoshiarpur after examining the record and hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the applicantGurinder Singh, recommended the name of the applicant as a suitable candidate for the post of Lamberdar, being 48 years of age, a B.Sc (Hons.)Agriculture, owning 7 acres, 3 kanals of land. He is son of deceased Lamberdar and is well versed with the job of Lamberdar. He is employed with Horticulture Department.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that after having been found most meritorious amongst the aspirants, was appointed as Lamberdar, vide order dated 23.11.2010 (Annexure P-1). Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.4, went in appeal before respondent No.2, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 01.01.2013 and respondent No.4, was appointed as Lamberdar, in his place. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against order dated 01.01.2013, was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 05.12.2014, on the ground of jurisdiction. The learned counsel placed reliance on Sukhminder Singh Vs. F.C., 1992 PunLJ 325, to contend that appointment of a person as Lamberdar cannot be ignored only on account of his being a government servant, provided, he is eligible and suitable otherwise.