TARSEM LAL Vs. THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 09.01.2014 (Annexure P-l) passed by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur-respondent No.3 appointing respondent No.4-Kashmir Kaur as scheduled caste Lambardar of Village Bassi Jamal Khan, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur and the order dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner Punjab, Chandigarh, whereby, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar-respondent No.2, vide which the appointment of respondent No.4-Kashmir Kaur was set aside and the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar in her place, has been set aside.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.4 was Sarpanch of the village at the time when she applied for the post of Lambardar. He contends that merely because she was a Sarpanch, obviously would not be a ground for making her ineligible for consideration for appointment to the post of Lambardar but there were various complaints against her working and she was not found available in the village as and when some work had to be performed. Assertion has also been made with regard to the compromise which has been entered into in a Civil Suit dated 22.05.2014 (Annexure P-8) where she had put to auction a ground of the Gram Panchayat which was left out in the consolidation proceeding where she had acknowledged the fact that she could not have done so. He thus, contends that a person who is incapable of performing the responsibilities of a Sarpanch and violates the provisions of statute cannot be said to be a suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar. He thus, contends that the order as passed by the Commissioner having been based upon proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances should not be interfered with by the Financial Commissioner. Assertion has also been made that in case, the Financial Commissioner came to a conclusion that the order of the Commissioner dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) was not in accordance with law, then the matter should have been remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration instead of setting aside the same and restoring the order of Collector appointing respondent No.4 as a Lambardar.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance have gone through the impugned order passed by the Commissioner dated 30.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) as also the orders passed by the Collector dated 09.01.2014 (Annexure P-l) appointing respondent No.4 as a Lambardar of the village and the order dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab and do not find myself in agreement with the contention as raised by the counsel for the petitioner.