NARINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra-court appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent against an order and judgment dated 19.07.2018, rendered by the learned Single Judge, vide which the writ petition preferred by appellant assailing the order dated 16.08.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissionercum-District Controller, Jalandhar appointing respondent No.4 as Lambardar, as also the orders passed by the appellate and the revisional authorities affirming the said order, has since been dismissed.

(2.) A vacancy of Nambardar (General Category), in Village Balkohna, Tehsil Nakodar, District Jalandhar, occurred owing to death of its incumbent, namely, Gurdev Singh Sidhu. Accordingly, the applications were invited by Naib Tehsildar, Jalandhar from the persons desirous of being appointed to the said post. To begin with, ten candidates were in the fray. But as against a few criminal cases were pending and the rest withdrew their applications, only the claim of appellant - Narinder Kaur and respondent No.4 Dalbir Singh survived for consideration. However, the Naib Tehsildar, vide his report, submitted to the SDM, Nakodar recommended the name of Dalbir Singh (respondent No.4) for appointment as Nambardar. Whereas, SDM, Nakodar recommended the name of the appellant (Narinder Kaur) to the District Collector, Jalandhar. On a consideration of the credentials of both the candidates, the District Collector vide his order dated 16.08.2016 reached a conclusion that Dalbir Singh respondent No.4 was more educated than the appellant. He also appeared to be more intelligent than Narinder Kaur. He very well knew the duties and responsibilities of Lambardar. Further, his name was also recommended by the Naib Tehsildar, Nakodar. Thus, he was more suitable to be appointed as Lambardar. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the said decision, under Section 13 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (for short, 'the Act'), was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Likewise, even the revision petition filed by the appellant under Section 16 of the Act was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh. And as indicated above, since the writ petition too, preferred by the appellant, was dismissed, thus this appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the authorities under the Act as also the learned Single Judge apparently erred, for the fact that the appellant- Narinder Kaur was barely 54 years of age, whereas respondent No.4 was 63 years' old, and thus she was more suitable for the post was not factored in. Further, she owned a land measuring 43 kanals and 16 marlas situated in Village Balkohna itself, and was a permanent resident of the said village. And on the contrary, Dalbir Singh respondent No.4 barely owned a land measuring 04 kanals and 14 marlas only. Besides this, the appellant Narinder Kaur happened to be the wife of deceased Nambardar, and as she had been assisting her late husband in discharging his duties, she had gathered a valuable experience and knowledge as regards the functions and responsibilities of the office. Thus, she was a better candidate than respondent No.4. Further, she was also a President of Village Cooperative Society and her claim was even recommended by SDM, Nakodar for appointment. And to substantiate this submission, learned counsel had also placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and Others., (2009) 3 SCC 439.