IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No.1404 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 21.02.2011 Balkar Singh ....Appellant(s) vs. Financial Commissioner, Cooperation, Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.G.S.Nagra, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms.Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mrs.Amandeep Soni, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** Ranjan Gogoi, CJ. (Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 21.8.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding numbered as CWP No.14699 of 2008. By the said order, the writ petition filed by the appellant against the appointment of the 3rd respondent as the Lambardar of Village Ballo Chak, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala has been dismissed. The brief facts that will required to be noticed, at this stage, are that by an order dated 10.3.2004, the 3rd respondent was appointed as a Lambardar by the District Collector. On appeal by the present appellant, the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar set aside the said order and appointed the appellant as the Lambardar. The said order of the L.P.A.No.1404 of 2009 -2- Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was reversed by the Financial Commissioner by order dated 9.5.2008 upholding the order passed by the primary Authority i.e. the District Collector. The appellant being aggrieved, filed the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. In the writ petition filed, it was contended that the land holding of the appellant was larger than the 3rd respondent and the appellant had read upto class IX whereas the 3rd respondent had read upto class IV. Projections, therefore, be made that the appellant is a better candidate. The learned Single Judge answered the challenge made by holding that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ Court does not embark upon a scrutiny of the relative merit of the candidates. The learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that the 3rd respondent was an ex- serviceman and his grand-father was a Lambardar. Notice was also had of the provisions of the Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules under which no particular educational qualification is prescribed for holding the post of Lambardar. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the selection made by the primary Authority i.e. the Deputy Collector, has been rightly upheld by the Financial Commissioner and as it is the primary Authority that is required to deal with the matter, the order passed by the said Authority should be upheld unless there are strong and compelling reasons to disagree. Having considered the matter, we are of the view that the task of selection and appointment of Lambardar under the Rules is vested in the Deputy Collector and unless the decision taken by the said Authority is palpably erroneous, opposed to the principles of natural justice or is L.P.A.No.1404 of 2009 -3- arbitrary or unreasonable, the same should not be interfered with by the writ Court. We are also of the view that the writ Court should not undertake to scrutinize the inter se merit of the candidates. If the appointment of 3rd respondent is to be adjudged from the above parameters, we find no infirmity in his appointment as a Lambardar as made by the District Collector and upheld by the Financial Commissioner. We will, therefore, have no occasion to interfere with the conclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge. The LPA, therefore, is not being entertained any further. It is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) CHIEF JUSTICE February 21, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE