PRITAM KAUR Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge has been laid by the appellant through this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 01.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2017, assailing the appointment of Sukhjinder Singhrespondent no.4 as Lambardar of the village Mehmedpur, Tehsil Bhaloth, District Kapurthala (Punjab).

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent no.4, though a post graduate and younger in age to the appellant, would not be in a position to discharge his function as a Lambardar properly and efficiently because he, on account of his vocation as Press Correspondent, cannot live permanently in village, whereas the appellant, being a house wife and 7th class pass, lives permanently in the village involving herself in social activities regularly and thus, it would be more appropriate to appoint her as Lambardar than respondent no.4. Both the learned authorities below and the learned Single Judge did not consider this aspect of the matter in its correct perspective. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Neeraj Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2013 (2) Local Acts Reporter 526 and Shri @ Siri Niwas v. State of Haryana and others, 2013 (2) Local Acts Reporter 53

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and gone through the impugned orders passed by the authorities below and the learned Single Judge.