RUKWINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Collector, Ludhiana, appointed respondent no.2, Gurdev Singh, as lambardar of Village Doraha, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana, on 14.8.2001 vide Annexure P1. There were, in all, three candidates, for the post, the other two being Rukwinder Singh petitioner and one Kartar Singh. The latter did not pursue his application and was proceeded ex-parte, whereas the petitioner was ignored due to being less meritorious and having less academic qualifications than respondent no.2. The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent no.2, in appeal which was accepted and the order Annexure P1 was set aside vide order dated 15.5.2002, Annexure P2, substituting the petitioner as Lambardar in place of respondent no.2. Later on, the Financial Commissioner allowed the revision filed against Annexure P2, vide order dated 11.12.2003, Annexure P3, and thereby set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored that of the Collector.

(2.) It is the order of the Financial Commissioner Annexure P3 which is under challenge in this petition filed by the Rukwinder Singh petitioner. After hearing both sides, we do not find any perversity, short-coming or infirmity in the impugned order, nor any such could be pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) The Collector had appointed respondent no.2 as lambardar, on the recommendation of the Tehsildar, Payal, as against the recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Payal, in respect of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the academic qualifications of respondent no.2 were much higher than those of the petitioner. The former had studied upto B.A.Part-II whereas the latter was only matriculate, at the relevant time. In addition, respondent no.2 was a social worker and had also been participating in NSS and NCC. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 rightly pointed out that while setting aside the well reasoned order of the Collector, the Commissioner did not assess the relative merits and de-merits of the petitioner and respondent no.2, nor did he give any cogent reason for differing with the opinion of the Collector. It is settled position of law that Commissioner cannot substitute his choice in place of that of the Collector, without giving solid reasons for doing so. The choice of the District Collector in the matter is of primary importance and it cannot be interfered with unless there is some patent shortcoming in it or it suffers from some other infirmity or perversity.