PARGAT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the Collector and as well as the Financial Commissioner who has upheld the appointment of private respondent-Harmesh Kaur as Lambardar.

(2.) Mr. Batth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the post of Lambardar had become vacant, the process of appointment was initiated. The Collector had recommended the name of respondent No.4 but the Commissioner set aside the order on the premises that the petitioner is a matriculate viz-a-viz the respondent No.4 who is 5th pass, though both are having the same age. However, in revision preferred by respondent No.4, the Financial Commissioner did not assign any reason qua merit and demerit of the candidates and simply endorsed the view of the Collector. The revisional court was required to go into the legalities and illegalities/merits and demerits and therefore, the impugned orders, particularly the order passed by the Financial Commissioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(3.) Mr. G.L. Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent No.4 accepts notice and contends that as per the ratio decidendi culled out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and others 2009 (3) SCC 439, the recommendation of the Collector as per Section 28 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 and Rules 15 and 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardar) Rules, 1908 is one of the criteria for appointment of Lambardar. Once both the candidates are of the same age, the petitioner cannot be said to have weighage of age, thus, urges this Court for upholding the order under challenge.