SARABJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 07.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Collector, Fatehgarh Sahib, appointing respondent No.5-Harbhajan Singh as the Lambardar of Village Dalo Majra, Hadbast No.153, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib, order dated 01.03.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, order dated 19.11.2018 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, whereby the revision petition has also been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Village Dalo Majra consists of two Pattis namely Thulla Bhambu Khan Patti and Thulla Sodhian Patti. The village already has a Lambardar, who belongs to Bhambu Khan Patti. The second Lambardar, therefore, of the village should have been that of Thulla Sodhian Patti. Admittedly, respondent No.5 does not belong to Thulla Sodhian Patti and, therefore, could not have been appointed the Lambardar of the village. His further contention is that the Lambardar, who has expired i.e. Ravinder Singh, belongs to Thulla Sodhian Patti and, therefore, the petitioner, who belongs to that very patti, should have been appointed to the post of Lambardar. With the appointment of respondent No.5-Harbhajan Singh, both the Lambardars are now from Bhambu Khan Patti. He, thus, contends that the appointment of respondent No.5 cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for caveator-respondent No.5 has pointed out that the post which has been advertised was that of the Lambardar of Village Dalo Majra. It was not specified as to whether it related to a particular Patti of the village. Since the lambardari was for the village as a whole and proper advertisement in this regard had been carried out in both the Pattis, respondent No.5 had applied for the said post of Lambardar and has been duly selected finding him to be more meritorious keeping in view not only educational qualification but other factors also. He, thus, contends that there being no specified distinction between the appointment of Lambardar to a particular Patti, the candidature of respondent No.5 has rightly been taken into consideration. He, thus, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.