IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.729 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 21.04.2011 Sukhdev Singh …..Appellant versus Financial Commissioner and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) This appeal petition has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 1.3.2011, dismissing CWP No.12953 of 2009 filed by the appellant-petitioner. Heard. Dispute in this appeal pertains to an appointment of a Lambardar in village Dhatogal, tehsil Dhuri, district Sangrur. To fill up that vacancy, applications were invited. Appellant and respondent No.4 were the contesting candidates. The lower revenue staff upto the Tehsildar level recommended name of respondent No.4, whereas SDM made recommendation in favour of the appellant. The Collector, vide order dated 4.10.2007, after discussing comparative merits of both the candidates appointed the appellant as a Lambardar by observing as under:- LPA No.729 of 2011(O&M) “After hearing the candidates and perusal of the record it has been found that both the candidates are grand sons of the deceased Lambardar Dalip Singh. Both the candidates hold considerable land which can serve and security for the Government dues. As per the report of the police both the candidates have never been convicted. Candidate Sukhdev Singh possesses wider experience of life being older in age than the other candidate Gurmeet Singh. He knows the residents of the village personally. Therefore, by agreeing with the report of Assistant Collector-I and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dhuri, candidate Sukhdev Singh is hereby appointed as Lambardar of village Dhatogal against the vacancy caused due to the death of Lambardar Dalip Singh. He will perform all his duties as Lambardar of village and land held by him will remain attached to serve as security for the Govt. dues. Sanad Lambardari be issued.” Perusal of the order clearly indicates that the comparative merits of both the candidates though mentioned in earlier part of the order, were not noticed at the time when final order was passed. Respondent No.4 went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner, Patiala vide order dated 19.2.2008, by observing as under:- “4. I have heard both the parties and have also gone through the record placed on file. The perusal of the record shows that the appellant is more meritorious than the respondent. The appellant has studied upto 10+2 class whereas the respondent has studied upto 8th class. The appellant has 37 bighas 7 biswas of land whereas the respondent has 35 bighas 3 biswas of land. The appellant is younger than the respondent in age. Although it is a settled law that the choice of the Distt. Collector should not be interfered but it is also injustice if more meritorious candidate has been ignored. The appellant has an edge over the respondent being more meritorious. In my opinion, the appellant being more meritorious than the respondent, is a 2 LPA No.729 of 2011(O&M) suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar. In view of the above, the appeal is hereby accepted and the case is remanded to Distt. Collector, Sangrur with the direction to decide the case afresh after considering the merits of the contesting candidates.” It was noted by the Commissioner that except age no other merit of the candidates was discussed by the Collector when appointing the appellant as a Lambardar of the village. Appellant remained unsuccessful in revision. Orders passed by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner were challenged in the above said writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order on 1.3.2011 and remand order passed by the Commissioner was upheld by noting that the Collector has not discussed comparative merits of both the candidates. We are satisfied with the order passed. The order passed by the Commissioner is very clear, whereas to the contrary, a perusal of an order passed by the Collector indicates that except age, no other fact was taken into consideration when appointing the appellant as a Lambardar. Otherwise also, order passed is very innocuous. On merits, candidature of the appellant will again be considered by the Collector. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 21.04.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3