HARJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM-13657-CWP-2016 Applicant seeks permission to place on record Annexures P-4 and P-5 and also seeks exemption from filing certified copies thereof. Application is allowed, as prayed for. CM stands disposed of. CWP No. 16450 of 2016 Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.5.2016 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby revision petition filed by respondent No.5 was allowed, setting aside the order dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and restoring the order dated 27.5.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) It is a matter of record that comparative merits of the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 were duly considered by the District Collector. Petitioner was 8th class pass whereas respondent No.5 was 5th class pass. Petitioner was 35 years of age whereas respondent No.5 was 39 years of age. Petitioner was owning 12 kanals land whereas respondent No.5 was owning 2 acres of land. In addition to the above, respondent No.5 was also the Director of Cooperative Society of the village. His candidature was recommended by Naib Tehsildar, Banga, as well as Tehsildar Nawanshahr. Candidature of petitioner was recommended by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nawanshahr. Giving due consideration to all the relevant aspects of the matter, District Collector appointed respondent No.5 as Lamabrdar vide impugned order dated 27.5.2010 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner filed his appeal which came to be accepted by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-2).

(3.) A bare reading of the operative part of the order passed by the Commissioner would show that he has proceeded on a factually incorrect and legally misconceived approach. In the present case, respondent No.5 was nowhere found involved in any FIR. It was a private criminal complaint which also came to be withdrawn by the complainant. Since there was no trial, there was no question of saying that he was acquitted. In fact, respondent No.5 neither faced any criminal trial before he was appointed as Lambardar by Collector vide above said order dated 27.5.2010 (Annexure P-1), nor there was any allegation against him even by the petitioner or other candidates for the post of Lambardar. In such a situation, it can be safely concluded that the Commissioner acted without jurisdiction, while passing the order dated 29.8.2012 (Annexure P-2) and the same was rightly set aside by the Financial Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 12.5.2016 (Annexure P-3), which deserves to be upheld.