PARAMDEEP SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by the petitioner, is to the order dtd. 26/5/2015 (Annexure P-5) whereby the Financial Commissioner has remanded the dispute of appointment of Lambardar of Village Hazara, Jalandhar, to the Collector, for filling up the vacancy, afresh. Resultantly, the order dtd. 23/2/2012 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner had been appointed by the Collector, has been set aside as the Financial Commissioner had taken a view that serious allegations had been levelled against both the candidates.

(2.) It is pertinent to notice that the said order is not under challenge by the private-respondent No.4-Amanjot Singh, who otherwise has filed the written statement. The Commissioner, on appeal filed by the private-respondent No.4, had set aside the appointment of the petitioner on 10/1/2014 (Annexure P-3) by holding that preferential consideration had to be given to the private-respondent on account of the hereditary claim. The Commissioner had gone on to hold that education wise and land holding wise both the candidates were almost on equal footing and therefore, the belated allegations and counter-allegations did not merit consideration and resultantly, appointed private-respondent No.4. The said view has rightly not been approved by the Financial Commissioner who has gone on to hold that the date on which the person was appointed as Lambardar is relevant for determination of qualification for appointment.

(3.) Mr.Harsh Bunger, counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that on account of a theft case in FIR No.114 dtd. 4/8/2013 which was lodged against the petitioner in which he had been placed in column No.2, the investigation process had started and the Financial Commissioner has directed reconsideration. It is submitted that even the summoning order, as such, passed by the Magistrate has been set aside by the Addl.Session Judge, Jalandhar on 11/9/2012 and therefore, nothing survives, as such, on the basis of which, the matter is to be reconsidered by the Collector, especially keeping in view the fact that the order of appointment was dtd. 23/2/2012 and even the FIR was lodged thereafter and the relevant date would be the date of the vacancy, as such. He has, accordingly, rightly relied upon the Division Bench judgment in Karam Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner and others 2006 (7) RCR (Civil) 8 wherein it has been held as under: