HARVINDER SINGH Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 08.01.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, Sangrur - respondent No.2 appointing Jaswant Singh - respondent No.3 as Lambardar of village Sanghreri, Tehsil and District Sangrur and the order dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab - respondent No.1 setting aside the order dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, whereby, appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed and the case was remanded back to the District Collector, Sangrur - respondent No.2 for fresh decision.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, has, in its order dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure P-2), on assessing the respective merits of the petitioner as well as respondent No.3, come to a conclusion that the petitioner was a better candidate when compared with respondent No.3. It has also been pointed out therein that the petitioner has experience of lambardari work as he has worked as Sarbrah Lambardar when his father was very old and suffering from diseases but this has also not been taken into consideration by the District Collector apart from the factor that the Revenue Authority had recommended the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lambardar. He contends that the order of remand passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, was a well-reasoned order, which did not call for any interference by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. His further contention is that the District Collector, in any case, has to reconsider the matter after appreciating the reasons as to why the case has been remanded back for fresh decision and pass a fresh order. He contends that the non-consideration of experience which the petitioner had gained as a Sarbrah Lambardar, would amount to an illegality on the part of the District Collector, which would render the order appointing respondent No.3 as Lambardar illegal and therefore, rightly interfered with by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that FIR No.40 dated 22.05.2016, under Sections 307, 323, 447, 427, 148, 149 and 120-B of IPC has been registered at P.S. Sadar Sunam, against respondent No.3, therefore, he is not eligible for appointment to the post of Lambardar. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the order dated 16.01.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab - respondent No.1.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has asserted that the said respondent has been found to be a more meritorious candidate especially in the light of the fact that he is 10th class pass and holds more land than the petitioner and has been found to be more suitable by the District Collector. He contends that the order, which has been passed by the District Collector is a well-reasoned order, in which he has taken into consideration each and every aspect. It has been mentioned that the factum of the petitioner being the Sarbrah Lambardar would not make much of difference as the said aspect would be applicable in case, other aspects with regard to the two candidates, which were taken into consideration, had been found to be equal, which factor has, admittedly, is not an issue because when the writ petition was filed, petitioner is said to be 54 years of age and respondent No.3 - Jaswant Singh 57 years of age, therefore, they fall within the same age bracket and thus, would not make much of difference. He, thus, contends that the order which has been passed by the District Collector has been rightly accepted by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, do not call for any interference by this Court.