IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.874 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 17.05.2011 Tek Singh …..Appellant versus State of Punjab and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. Pardeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.2392 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, the same is allowed and 65 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.874 of 2011(O&M) This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the learned Single Judge on 18.1.2011, dismissing CWP No.869 of 2011, filed by the appellant. In this case, dispute pertains to appointment to the post of a Lambardar in village Langrian, tehsil Malerkotla, district Sangrur. As per facts on record, when applications were invited to fill up the said post, the appellant was the only candidate. Thereafter, respondent No.5 filed an application to consider his name. The Collector, after taking note of comparative merits of both the parties, appointed the appellant as a Lambardar of the village. The Commissioner accepted the appeal filed by LPA No.874 of 2011(O&M) respondent No.5 and matter was remanded to the Collector for re- consideration, vide order dated 31.1.2006. It was specifically stated in the order that the Collector will note as to whether due to employment of the appellant in Punjab State Electricity Board, he would be available in the village or not. Both, the appellant and respondent No.5 challenged the said order before the Financial Commissioner. Their revision petitions were dismissed vide order dated 4.7.2007. Matter was thereafter taken up by the Collector and vide order dated 13.12.2007, it was observed that since it will not be possible for the appellant to remain present in the village, it was ordered that fresh applications be invited to fill up the post and Sanad dated 7.8.07 already issued, be taken back from the appellant. Thereafter, Collector initiated the process of filling up the vacancy and vide his order dated 5.8.2008 considered the case afresh and appointed respondent Jagtar Singh as Lambardar. Appeal filed by the appellant against the aforesaid order was dismissed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala vide his order dated 23.1.2008. In appeal, appellant remained unsuccessful. Matter went to the Financial Commissioner. Revision petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 4.8.2010, by observing as under:- “The Collector after due consideration vide order dated 13.12.2007 concluded that once the petitioner Tek Singh is working in the Punjab State Electricity Board, he will not be available to the people of the village for their work. Though being a Government servant does not bar a person from having appointed as Lambardar, but in this case the District Collector has come to a specific conclusion that the petitioner 2 LPA No.874 of 2011(O&M) is not a suitable candidate for appointment as a Lambardar due to his non availability to the public. I have no reasons to differ with the reasoning given by the District Collector and hence the petition (ROR No.330 of 2008) is dismissed being without merit. In ROR No.129 of 2010, the order of District Collector Sangrur dated 5.8.2008 appointing respondent as Lambardar has been challenged. Since the candidature of the petitioner has already been found unsuitable by the District Collector vide order dated 13.12.2007, his claim has not been considered by the District Collector while appointing respondent as Lambardar vide his order dated 5.8.2008. In view of the reasons given earlier, the petitioner is not a suitable candidate for being appointed as Lambardar for the reasons that he will not be available to the people for their work as he is employed with the Punjab State Electricity Board. Second revision petition is also accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit.” The appellant came to this Court by filing CWP No.869 of 2011, which was dismissed vide the impugned order. The learned Single Judge found it, as a matter of fact, that availability of the appellant in the village is doubtful because he is serving against a post, which is transferable. No illegality has been indicated in the order passed. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 17.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3