HARSHARAN SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, setting aside the order passed by the Collector appointing petitioner as a Lambardar of village Sammeywali Tehsil and District Mukatsar.

(2.) THE post of village Sammeywali fell vacant and sanction was accorded to fill up the said post on 15.3.2001. Number of persons applied for appointment as Lambardar. Ultimately three candidates were left to compete. After police verification of the candidates, Tehsildar and SDM recommended the name of respondent Preetinder Singh for appointment as Lambardar. Collector Mukatsar, however, on 31.12.2002 remanded the case back as Naksha Lambardari was not attached and on the ground that the petitioner was not heard. Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar again recommended the name of respondent No. 4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, this time after considering merits and demerits recommended the name of the petitioner. The Collector after considering and assessing the merits of the various candidates appointed the petitioner as a Lambardar. The Collector has observed that petitioner is 42 years old. He has a good character. He was also performing duties of Lambardar from the year 1988 to 1996. He was in a possession of 30 acres of land whereas his family was having 100 acres of land. Observing that being an agriculturist, the petitioner would be easily available in the village, the Collector has preferred him for appointment.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the Collector, who has to take work from the Lambardar and his choice is required to be preferred unless it is found perverse. The counsel would further contend that the Collector had assessed the merits of each candidates and has appointed the petitioner. This choice cannot said to be perverse in any manner. The counsel would rather find fault with the observation made by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, who have interfered with the choice exercised by the Collector on a ground which, as per the counsel cannot be said valid in terms of the rule regulating the appointment of Lambardar. In this regard reference is made to Rule 15 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules, where the aspect which are required to be taken into consideration have been specified. The Rule 15 reads as under : "15. Matters to be considered in first appointments. - In all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other matters to:- (a) his hereditary claims; (b) the property in the estate possessed by the candidate to secure the recovery of land-revenue. (c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; (e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; (f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India. In case of an ex-headman of an estate or Sub-division thereof in the territory now comprising the State of Punjab who had resigned or was dismissed on account of his participation in an national movement before partition and another headman was appointed in his place, the present incumbent of the post shall be removed irrespective of the provisions of the rule 16 and the ex- headman would be appointed in his place if he has not rendered himself unfit for appointment for any of the reasons given in rule 16 except imprisonment for a political offence before 15th August, 1947. In case the ex-headman is no longer alive, a person of his family who would under the rules have been entitled to be headman if the resignation or dismissal had not intervened, would be appointed as headman. But when no such person exist there would be no need to remove the existing Lambardar."