GURLAL SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Gurlal Singh, who was appointed as Lambardar of village Jasseana, Tehsil and District Muktsar by order dated a 13.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, while accepting of his appeal against the order of the Collector, has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, whereby while disposing of the revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 the matter has been remanded to the District Collector for appointment of Lambardar by inviting fresh application.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that after the death of earlier Lambardar of the village in the year 2002, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Lambardar after due proclamation in the village. In pursuance of the said proclamation, nine candidates applied for the said post, including the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Collector after considering the comparative merits of all the candidates, appointed Bikkar Singh (respondent No. 3 herein) as Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 29.8.2002. Against the said order the petitioner and Baljinder Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) filed two separate appeals before the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal of Baljinder Singh and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner by passing a common order dated 13.3.2003 while observing as under :

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the Financial Commissioner was not justified in remanding the case to the Collector for inviting fresh applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar. He submitted that it was not the case of either party before the Financial Commissioner that in the instant case no proper proclamation for inviting applications for the post of Lambardar was made. The Financial Commissioner can remand the case for inviting fresh applications for appointment of Lambardar only in case he comes to the conclusion that proper opportunity was not given to the villagers by making due proclamation by inviting the applications for appointment of Lambardar or that none of the candidate is eligible or suitable for appointment on the post. But, in this case no such finding has been recorded by the Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner after considering the comparative merits of all the candidates came to the conclusion that the petitioner was the most suitable candidate for appointment of Lambardar, therefore, he was appointed as such after setting aside the appointment of Bikkar Singh made by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner has not touched that aspect or has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a better candidate or was ineligible or unqualified for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Without coming to such conclusion, the Financial Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order of the Collector.