CWP No. 15464 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 15464 of 2006 Date of decision: 13.2.2008 Munsa Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S.GAREWAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. C.L. Pawar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. NS Virk, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents 1 to 4. Ms. Jyoti Sarin, Advocate, for respondent 5. K.S.GAREWAL, J. This case relates to the appointment of Lambardar of Dherowal Naru Nangal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. The vacancy occurred when Charan Singh, Lambardar died. When the proclamation was issued in the village, Munsa Singh as well as five others applied for the post. The Tehsildar recommended the name of Munsa Singh to the SDO who also approved the recommendation and sent the petitioner's name to the CWP No. 15464 of 2006 2 Collector who on May 27, 2001 appointed Munsa Singh as Lambardar. The order was challenged by Ajit Singh before the Commissioner. On January 15, 2003, the Commissioner accepted Ajit Singh's appeal and appointed him as Lambardar. Munsa Singh took the matter before the Financial Commissioner by filing a revision petition on January 15, 2004 alongwith the application for condonation of delay. It was pleaded that the revision could not be filed in time because his brother, sister-in-law and husband of the counsel met with an accident and as such his lawyer could not attend the Court. The application for condonation of delay was rejected. The application for condonation of delay was poorly drafted. No details of the accident or of the injuries sustained by the husband of the lawyer were given. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that there was any genuine delay. Nevertheless since there is no limitation prescribed for filing revision before the Financial Commissioner, we examined the case of the parties dispassionately and found that the merits of Ajit Singh Singh were better than those of Munsa Singh. Ajit Singh was 32 years of age, was a farmer and also running a flour mill in the village. He has studied upto 10+2, he owns 4 kanals 19 marlas and the deceased Lambardar was a relative of his. On the other hand, Munsa Singh was 59 years of age, was a farmer, member of the Panchayat and owns 1 acre and 7 kanals land. The Commissioner had found Ajit Singh to be the most suitable persons since he was much better educated and also much younger than CWP No. 15464 of 2006 3 Munsa Singh. Furthermore, Ajit Singh was also likely to inherit about 27 kanals land from his father and in this way his holding would also become more than the holding of Munsa Singh. Since Ajit Singh ran a chaki in the village, he would also be available in the village at all times. The allegation of a criminal case against Ajit Singh had not been proved. Therefore, Commissioner had accepted Ajit Singh's appeal and appointed him as a Lambardar. We find that the reasons weighed with the Commissioner were valid reasons and Ajit Singh was certainly a better candidate being young, educated and holding more land. For the afore-stated reasons, we find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (K.S. GAREWAL) JUDGE 13.2.2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) prem JUDGE