IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 11341 of 2010 Date of decision: 19.07.20110 Ajit Singh ...Petitioner Versus F.C. Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Jattana, Addl. AG, Punjab for the State. Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 4. RANJIT SINGH J. On the death of Bachna Ram, who was Lambardar of village Darili Kalan, District Jalandhar, a process to appoint Lambardar was initiated. Five candidates applied for appointment to the post of Lambardar and they were Kulwant Singh, Pritam Singh, Ajit Singh, Sukhjit Singh and Raghbir Singh. Raghbir Singh did not appear before the Naib Tehsildar and the case of remaining four candidates was, accordingly, sent with the recommendation of Naib Tehsildar, who recommended the name of Sukhjit Singh. Tehsildar, Jalandhar and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar, however, recommended the name of Pritam Singh (respondent No. 4). The Collector different with them and appointed the petitioner as Lambardar on 27.10.2004. Respondent No. 4 impugned this order by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar. The appeal was accepted and respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lambardar in Civil Writ Petition No. 11341 of 2010 -2- place of the petitioner. The petitioner impugned this order before the Financial Commissioner, who has upheld the order passed by the Commissioner. Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of material on record would contend that the choice exercised by the Collector generally is required to be upheld. It is true that choice exercised by the Collector generally cannot be or should not be interfered with but if some relevant matter has not been taken into consideration by the Collector or some irrelevant issues are taken into consideration, it may be open to interfere in the choice so exercised by the Collector. While upholding the order passed by the Commissioner, the Financial Commissioner has noticed the merits and demerits of the petitioner as well as the other candidates. The Financial Commissioner was also conscious of this fact that the authority to appoint Lambardar lies with the Collector. A fact that respondent NO. 4 was an Ex-serviceman and had served the country is noticed. Respondent No. 4 was a President of the Committee of a school, a Matric pass and was found owning 5 acres of land. The petitioner though was more educated but was found to be suffering the infirmity of facing the criminal prosecution. Though, the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge and this fact was duly noticed by the Financial Commissioner but respondent No. 4 had a clean record. The conviction of the petitioner has not been taken as infirmity as such but if one is to compare merits of the two persons then certainly a person, who has not faced criminal prosecution, can rate better than the person, who somehow got entangled with the criminal Civil Writ Petition No. 11341 of 2010 -3- proceedings. It is even noticed that the petitioner was accused of withdrawing the pay of dead person and on inquiry by Deputy Commissioner, he was found guilty. The counsel for the petitioner seriously contested this finding on the ground that there was no material on record. This aspect was required to be agitated and pleaded by him before the Commissioner/Financial Commissioner . It is noticed that certain relevant material was not considered by the Collector while exercising his choice to appoint the petitioner. The Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, therefore, are justified to interfere in the choice exercised by the Collector, who had ignored certain relevant consideration. These were relevant consideration while considering the person to appoint Lambardar. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. July 19, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE