In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.14206 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:11.9.2009 Mohan Lal .....Petitioner v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Balram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. The petitioner assails the order dated 17.12.2008 (Annexure- P.4) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab whereby the revision petition filed by Harmesh Lal (respondent No.4) with respect to the appointment of Mohan Lal (petitioner) as Lambardar has been accepted. The learned Financial Commissioner has remanded the matter to the Collector to effect proper proclamation in the village so that interested parties including the petitioner and respondent No.4 can file their applications for appointment of Lambardar. The parties were directed to appear before the Collector on 28.1.2009 for further proceedings. An additional post of Lambardar for the members of Scheduled Castes at Village Sarhali, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar was created. Process for filling-up the post was initiated and `Mushtri Munadi' was conducted at Village Sarhali by the Nail Tehsildar, Nurmahal intimating to all regarding the creation of an additional post of Lambardar for members of Scheduled Castes. Any person willing to be appointed as Lambardar may C.W.P. No.14206 of 2009 [2] submit his application. In pursuance of the proclamation, applications of two candidates Mohan Lal (petitioner) and Tarsem Lal were received. Later, Tarsem Lal withdrew his application in favour of the petitioner- Mohan Lal. Accordingly, Mohan Lal was appointed as Lambardar by the District Collector on 30.3.2006 (Annexure-P.1). The respondent No.4 on coming to know of the appointment of Mohan Lal filed an appeal on 2.6.2006 before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. It was stated that `Musthri Munadi' had not been done in the village and the order passed by the District Collector had been obtained through fraud. The applications were called for by 22.2.2006 but strangely within a period of less than a month and a half the file had crossed four Courts and the petitioner had been appointed as Lambardar. Two Lambardars of the Village, namely, Surjit Singh and Joginder Pal had tendered their affidavits that `Mushtri Munadi' had not been done in the village. The learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar held that Harmesh Lal (respondent No.4) was not a candidate before the Naib Tehsildar, the Tehsildar and the S.D.M., Phillaur. He even did not appear with his application before the District Collector, Jalandhar, therefore, he had no right to file an appeal against the impugned order. It was held that the allegation that `Mushtri Munadi' was not done in the village and the entries had been manufactured fraudulently in conspiracy with the revenue officials has no force. Harmesh Lal (respondent No.4) aggrieved against the order filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner who has inter alia observed as follows:- “Perusal of the record shows that Rapat Roznamacha for C.W.P. No.14206 of 2009 [3] munadi was made on 15.2.2006 and the District Collector appointed the respondent as Lambardar on 30.3.2006. It shows that from mushtri munadi to the appointment of Lambardar, all channels were crossed within one and half month. The entire exercise has been carried out in the post haste and clandestine manner. Only two persons applying for the post and one candidate withdrawing from contest coupled with unusual speed with which the respondent has been appointed Lambardar, raises doubts about the validity of the procedure followed by the revenue authorities.” A perusal of the above observations show that the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II) on appreciation of the evidence and material on record has come to the conclusion that `Mushtri Munadi' for appointment of Lambardar was not properly conducted. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction is not to substitute its decision for that reached at by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II) on re-appreciation of the evidence and material. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. September 11, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No