CWP No. 4409 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4409 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: April 07, 2011 Jasvir Singh .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. G.S. Attariwala, Addl. A.G., Punjab None for respondent no. 3. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-6 dated 06.10.2009 passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab. 2. Facts leading to passing of the impugned order are that Harijan Lambardar was to be appointed for village Peuri, Tehsil Gidderbaha, District Muktsar. The Collector, Muktsar vide order Annexure P-1 dated 25.05.2004, appointed respondent no. 3-Baldev Singh as Lambardar. The petitioner carried an appeal. Vide order Annexure P-2 dated 22.12.2005, Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner. The respondent went up in appeal before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab. The Financial Commissioner, Punjab remanded the case to the Collector with directions to invite fresh applications for CWP No. 4409 of 2010 2 appointment of Lambardar vide order Annexure P-4 dated 22.01.2008. The petitioner approached this Court by way of filing CWP No. 5540 of 2008. This Court, vide order Annexure P-5 dated 20.01.2009, directed the Financial Commissioner to decide the case in accordance with law within the bounds of his jurisdiction. 3. Vide impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 06.10.2009, respondent no. 3 has been appointed as Lambardar essentially on the ground that choice of Collector is to be honoured, if there is no illegality or infirmity in the order. The claim of the petitioner has been ignored on the ground that the petitioner is working as typist in Sub Divisional Court at Gidderbaha, District Muktsar and therefore, would not be easily available to the residents of the village. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the distance to Gidderbaha is less than 5 kilometers. Learned counsel further contends that the said fact has been taken into account by the Commissioner while passing order Annexure P-2. Learned counsel has impressed on the Court that the petitioner has a better merit and, therefore, would be more suitable to serve as Lambardar. 5. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel. Petitioner is 29 years of age and 10+2 pass where-against the respondent no. 3 is 43 years of age and 5th class pass. The only fact taken against the petitioner is that he is working as a typist in Gidderbaha and, therefore, would not be easily available to the villagers. The said circumstance has been taken into account by the Commissioner while passing order Annexure P-2 and allowing the appeal of the petitioner. It has been noticed that the village is only 5-6 miles away from Gidderbaha. In such circumstances, the CWP No. 4409 of 2010 3 petitioner cannot be said to be a non-resident of the village. Since the petitioner has to go to the tehsil headquarter everyday, it would be possible for the revenue officers to contact the petitioner, if necessary at Gidderbaha itself. 6. Having considered the issue, I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found in the order of the appellate authority in Annexure P- 2, particularly when the petitioner is younger to respondent no. 3 and considerably more educated being 10+2 pass. Respondent no. 3 is just 5th class pass. The petitioner is not working on a transferrable post, rather is self employed. In such circumstances, considering his job as a typist at a distance of 5 kilometers, it cannot be said to be a demerit. 7. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is more suitable to serve as a Lambardar, as has been held by the Commissioner while exercising appellate jurisdiction in passing order Annexure P-2. 8. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. Order Annexure P-6 dated 06.10.2009 is hereby quashed. 9. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is not found to be performing/discharging his duties as provided under Rule 20 of Punjab Land Revenue Rules (for short 'The Rules'), surely, the respondent or any other person can file an application under Rule 16 of the Rules for dismissal of the petitioner from the post of Headman/Lambardar. 07.04.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?