CWP No. 8678 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 8678 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: May 17, 2011 Joginder Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab and others .......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Sanjeev Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Joginder Singh-the petitioner and respondent no. 4-Sukhwinderjit Singh were competing for the post of Lambardar for village Gilzian, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. 2. Respondent no. 4 has been appointed by the Collector. The petitioner carried an appeal. The Commissioner has dismissed the appeal while upholding the order of the Collector. The order passed by the Collector placed on record as Annexure P-1 dated 27.04.2010 and order passed by the appellate authority Annexure P-2 dated 09.02.2011 are under challenge. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent no. 4 is a Non Resident Indian and, therefore, is not available in the village. The petitioner, under the circumstances, would make a better choice for appointment as a Lambardar. 4. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel in the CWP No. 8678 of 2011 2 context of what has been said in the impugned orders. 5. It has not been disputed that the petitioner is a member of Congress Committee. The petitioner was involved in two cases of criminal nature. In regard to the criminal cases, learned counsel contends that the cases have been cancelled. 6. Even though the cases in which the petitioner was involved might have been cancelled, it reflects him to be of a controversial nature. The petitioner might be eligible to compete for the post of Lambardar. He, however, cannot be said to be most suitable when his merits are compared with those of private respondent. 7. The private respondent has been found to be a permanent resident of the village in view of the ration card. The private respondent is a social worker with a sound financial position and bears a good moral character. Respectables of the village and other inhabitants have executed majornama in favour of the private respondent. The grand father and great grand father of the private respondent have been Lambardars and, therefore, the said respondent is conversant with the nature of work. The private respondent has been found to be taking part in public welfare activities. 8. Considering the comparative merit and demerit of the petitioner and respondent no. 4, respondent no. 4 has been found to be more suitable to serve as Lambardar, which finding does not deserve any interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 9. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. 10. In case the private respondent is found to be absent and not discharging his duties as enshrined under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (for short 'The Rules), surely, the petitioner or any other CWP No. 8678 of 2011 3 person would be at liberty to file an application for his dismissal from the post of Lambardar under Rule 16 of the Rules. 17.05.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?