Civil Writ Petition No.11887 of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 28, 2009 Balbir Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Vijay Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.C.Goyal, Addl.A.G.Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr.R.P.S.Rana, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. For appointment of the post of a Lambardar of village Boothgarh, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, nine persons, including the petitioner and respondent No.4 applied. Three persons did not appear and were proceeded ex-parte. Tehsildar recommended the name of the petitioner and so was the recommendation of Sub- Civil Writ Petition No.11887 of 2006 : 2 : Divisional Magistrate. Two more candidates, namely, Mohan Singh and Ramesh Chand withdrew their applications during the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. District Collector appointed the petitioner on 30.4.2001. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal against the same before the Commissioner, which was dismissed on 23.1.2003. He then filed a petition before the Financial Commissioner which has been allowed on 17.1.2006 and the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner are set-aside. The Financial Commissioner has primarily interfered in the orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner on the ground that undue weightage to the age and he being from Jat community was given to the petitioner. Another factor which the Financial Commissioner has noticed is that the Collector had unduly considered the relationship of the petitioner with deceased Lambardar as his maternal grand son. Financial Commissioner has then compared the comparative merits of the petitioner and respondent No.4 and finding him marginally meritorious accepted the revision and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village. As per the well settled position of law, the choice exercised by the Collector normally is not to be interfered with, unless it is found perverse or the order otherwise suffers from procedural or jurisdictional error. There is no finding clearly given that how the order passed by the Collector could be called perverse. The fact that the petitioner belongs to a Jat community was taken note of and so also the fact that the petitioner is maternal grand son of a deceased Lambardar. These factors may not, in themselves, be valid for appointing a person as a Lambardar, but can not be termed Civil Writ Petition No.11887 of 2006 : 3 : as totally irrelevant. If that be so, the order passed by the Collector cannot be termed as perverse on these counts. The impugned order passed by the Collector would show that he was of the view that petitioner was a better choice from all angles. He was found young, financially sound and experienced and in addition, it was observed that he belongs to Jat community. Another factor, which was taken into account in favour of the petitioner, was that he was maternal grand son of the deceased Lambardar. This was just to observe that it would have given him adequate experience to perform the duties of Lambardar more effectively. This was not the factor which appears to have led to the appointment of the petitioner as such. This was considered for the purpose that the petitioner by virtue of his relationship, gained experience for the post of Lambardar. The submission, that the hereditary claim on this ground could not have been weighed, in favour of the petitioner, thus, appears to be misconceived. Counsel for respondent No.4 then points out that there was a Will left by the deceased Lambardar, the maternal grand-father of the petitioner, disinheriting the petitioner because of his conduct. As observed above, the relationship was taken into consideration to appoint the petitioner, but appears to have been seen from the angle that the petitioner had gained this experience of the post of Lambardar. The social standing, which was taken into consideration by the Collector, has also been challenged by respondent No.4 on the ground that father of the respondent was Sarpanch for 20 years and, thus, he was also socially well connected. These aspects were Civil Writ Petition No.11887 of 2006 : 4 : not taken into consideration as are not referred in the impugned order. The Financial Commissioner, in my view, has apparently interfered with the choice exercised by the Collector without valid consideration. The order passed by the Collector does not suffer from any perversity which would call for interference. Accordingly, the order passed by the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained. The same is set-aside. The order passed by the Collector appointing the petitioner as Lambardar is restored. Having regard to the facts of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. April 28, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE