SURJIT SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an intra-court appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated 27.5.2019, rendered by the learned Single Judge, vide which the order dated 27.8.2018, passed by the Financial Commissioner appointing appellant as Lambardar, has since been set aside and the matter is remitted to the District Collector for reconsideration and decision afresh. The facts that are required to be noticed are limited.

(2.) The process to fill up a vacancy of Lambardar (Scheduled Caste) for village Amrik Nagri (Bullarie Colony), Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala, was initiated by the authorities. In response, to begin with, 11 candidates had submitted their claims. However, vide order dated 28.11.2013, the District Collector, Kapurthala, after evaluating the relative merits of the candidates in fray, appointed appellant as Lambardar. And, as relevant in context of the lis at hands, candidature of respondent (Pardeep Kumar) was rejected, as two FIRs, i.e. FIR No. 234 dated 18.9.2007 under Sections 341 / 323 / 324 / 334 IPC and FIR No. 22, dated 23.2.2005 under Sections 323 / 324 / 325 / 326 / 341 / 427 / 506 / 148 / 149 IPC, were registered against him, though subsequently he was acquitted in those cases. Secondly, he was running an Atta Chakki, and was, thus, unable to devote time to perform functions and duties of the office.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, respondent (Pardeep Kumar) preferred an appeal to the Commissioner, which was accepted, vide order dated 16.8.2016, and the matter was remitted to the District Collector for reconsideration on merits. For, the reasons assigned to disqualify Pardeep Kumar that an FIR was registered against him were erroneous, since he was acquitted in the criminal case. Further, just because he owned an Atta Chakki in the village could hardly be termed as a disqualification for consideration of his claim. Now, it was the appellant (Surjit Singh), who assailed the said order by way of an appeal to the Financial Commissioner, which was allowed, vide order dated 27.8.2018, and the order dated 16.8.2016, was set aside. It was observed that the position of law was settled that choice made by the Collector, after due analysis and evaluation of the relative merits of the candidates, could not be interfered with, unless shown to be perverse. Further, though the Commissioner remitted the matter to the District Collector, but no perversity in his order dated 28.11.2013 was indicated. And, as this Court had observed in various decisions that a candidate with a clear image should be preferred, the appointment of appellant as Lambardar was required to be restored. It was against this order, respondent (Pardeep Kumar) had filed the writ petition, referred to above, wherein the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, dated 27.8.2018, has been set aside and the matter has been remitted to the District Collector for reconsideration of the claims of the parties. Thus, this appeal.