TARSEM SINGH Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent No. 4 were both candidates for the office of Lamberdar. The Naib Tehsildar recommended the name of respondent No. 4 on the ground that he is easily available in the village. His claim was preferred to the claim of the petitioner who is said to be working privately outside the village. The choice was approved by the Collector in the order dated 3.1.2003. The Collector specifically mentioned that "though both the candidates have no negative point for the appointment of Lamberdar yet I give preference to Bhupinder Singh candidate who is easily available in the village to the needy person apart from his hereditary claim." Against the aforesaid order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division under Sec. 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The appeal filed by the petitioner was accepted. The Commissioner observed that the petitioner had studied upto 8th class whereas respondent No. 4 had only studied upto 5th class. The petitioner had served the Army for 18 years and is an ex-serviceman. He had served the nation. The Commissioner also found that some respectable residents of the village had deposed in favour of the petitioner. The Commissioner further observed that hereditary claim of respondent No. 4 is not relevant for the choice of a Lamberdar. The Commissioner also came to the conclusion that petitioner being an ex-serviceman would be more disciplined person. Consequently, the appointment of respondent No. 4 was set aside and the petitioner was appointed Lamberdar by order dated 14.11.2003. Against the aforesaid, respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab. The revision petition has been accepted. The Financial Commissioner has observed that the petitioner has been appointed as Lamberdar only on the ground that he was an ex-serviceman. The Financial Commissioner also noticed that it is a well settled proposition of law that appointment of Lamberdar is the prerogative of the District Collector (Deputy Commissioner) and it should normally not be interfered with unless the order of the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) is perverse or illegal. Finding no illegality or perversity in the order of the Collector, the Financial Commissioner has allowed the revision petition by order dated 20.9.2005 and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner on 14.11.2003. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that on being declared successful by the Commissioner on 14.11.2003, the Collector had issued the Sanad in favour of the petitioner on 23.1.2004. Thereafter, he had been serving the village and no complaint had been made against him by any resident of the village. Learned counsel submits that the Financial Commissioner had erred in law in interfering with the order passed by the learned Commissioner. The claim of the petitioner could not be rejected merely on the ground that he is in private employment outside the village. Even a Government servant cannot be said to be disqualified for becoming a Lamberdar in village. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Sukhminder Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, 1992 (3) S.C.T. 28 : [1992(4) SLR 499 (Pb. & Hry.) ]. Even otherwise the claim of the petitioner deserves to be accepted as he had an edge over respondent No. 4.