MANJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court by way of present writ petition, challenging the order dtd. 22/10/2018 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the revision petition preferred by respondent No.4-Gursharan Singh against the appointment of the petitioner as a Lambardar of Village Mehmuwal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur by the Collector vide order dtd. 30/1/2014 (Annexure P-1), which order of appointment, on challenge, had been upheld by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, vide order dtd. 7/10/2016 (Annexure P-2), has been allowed by setting-aside the orders passed by the said authorities and remanded the case to the District Collector to decide the matter afresh keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was facing a trial in a criminal complaint under Ss. 500 and 506 IPC read with Sec. 34 IPC and that as per the report of the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur, dtd. 5/5/2017, the petitioner is in illegal possession of the Gram Panchayat land.

(2.) It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a settled proposition of law that the choice of the Collector, who is the officer at the ground level and is aware of the facts and circumstances of the area should not be interfered with lightly unless there is a patent illegality and irregularity in the appointment of Lambardar. He contends that after considering the claims of the respective candidates, who had applied for appointment as Lambardar of Village Mehmuwal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, the petitioner was appointed as a Lambardar of the said Village by the Collector, District Hoshiarpur, vide order dtd. 30/1/2014 (Annexure P-1). This order of appointment was challenged by respondent No.4, Gursharan Singh, before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, in an appeal, who vide order dtd. 7/10/2016 (Annexure P-2) upheld the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar by dismissing the appeal of respondent No.4. These two orders were challenged by respondent No.4 before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, by filing a revision petition, which has been allowed vide order dtd. 22/10/2018 (Annexure P- 8), by setting-aside the appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of the village in the light of the fact that he is facing a criminal trial on the basis of a complaint preferred under Ss. 500 and 506 read with Sec. 34 IPC and further on the basis of report of Tehsildar dtd. 5/5/2017, according to which the petitioner is in illegal occupation of panchayat land.

(3.) He contends that it is a settled proposition of law that the qualification of the candidate(s) for appointment to the post of Lambardar has to be either seen on the date, if any, fixed in the proclamation or last date of receipt of application(s) or/and at the stage of appointment of Lambardar by the Collector. He asserts that the date of appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar of the village is dtd. 30/1/2014 whereas the criminal complaint, which has been filed against the petitioner is dtd. 1/9/2015 and similarly the report of Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur, is dtd. 5/5/2017. He contends that both these documents (i) criminal complaint and (ii) report of Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur are subsequent to the date of appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar and, therefore, the same cannot be taken into consideration for considering the eligibility and suitability of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar. He, thus, contends that the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, dtd. 22/10/2018 (Annexure P-8) cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.