SEWA SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER REVENUE PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 23.12.2015 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab as well as the order dated 14.06.2012 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala appointing respondent No.4 - Harvinder Singh as Lambardar of the village Suron, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar of the village Suron by the District Collector, Patiala vide order dated 23.06.2010 (Annexure P-9). This order was passed by the Collector assessing the comparative merit of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 - Harvinder Singh, taking into consideration the reports of the Revenue Authorities and interacting with he candidates himself i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.4. He further contends that the Collector found the petitioner to be fairly competent and had an idea about duties and the responsibilities of the village Lambardar. Respondent No.4, on the other hand, was found to be a person who could not even utter a single word in support of his claim. In these circumstances and keeping in view the fact that the father of the petitioner was the former Lambardar of the village, Collector found the petitioner to be more suitable and a better candidate as compared to Harvinder Singh- respondent No.4, leading to the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of village Suron, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

(3.) In the appeal, which has been preferred before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala by respondent No.4, the Commissioner has proceeded to set aside the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the field officers i.e. Naib Tehsildar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate have recommended the name of candidate Harvinder Singh and the Collector while passing the order has not disclosed and given the reasons for discarding the recommendations of field officers. Merely, on the basis of the recommendations of the two Revenue Authorities i.e. Naib Tehsildar and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Harvinder Singh has been appointed as Lambardar. His contention is that the revision petition which was preferred before the Financial Commissioner by the petitioner has also been dismissed on the same ground which is unsustainable as the opinion which has been expressed by the Revenue Authorities are merely recommendary in nature and not binding upon the Collector who ought to have considered various other factors before coming to a conclusion with regard to suitability and the merit of the candidates for the post of Lambardar. It is on the basis of such assessment that the Collector proceeded to appoint the Lambardar.