CWP No.4442 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.4442 of 2010(O & M) Date of decision : 6.4.2011 Iqbal Singh ........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl.AG, Punjab --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that he opposes the request for adjournment of the counsel for respondent No.4 as pleadings have been complete since November 2010, and therefore, wants to argue the matter. Heard. This petition has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-4 dated 6.11.2008 and order Annexure P-6 dated 17.12.2009, passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, respectively. Lambardar for village Hadayatpur, Tehsil Amritsar-1, District Amritsar was to be appointed. District Collector, Amritsar vide order Annexure P-3 dated 5.2.2008 appointed the petitioner while recording that for appointment on newly created post of Lambardar for the village, out of General Category, munadi in the village was done, the petitioner was found CWP No.4442 of 2010 -2- to be the only applicant who applied for the post of Lambardar. Applicant is owner of 157 kanals and 5 marlas of land in the village, 7th Class pass, can read Punjabi, is aged 27 years and is in good health. On temporary basis, the petitioner has been performing the duties of Lambardar. The petitioner was involved in a case, however, was acquitted before the date of appointment. The Revenue officials viz. Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil) recommended the name of the petitioner to be appointed as Lambardar because no de-merit in him could be traced. It appears that against order dated 5.2.2008, appeal was filed by respondent No.4-Jasbir Singh on 21.4.2008 on the plea that no munadi was conducted. Munadi was only on paper and therefore, the best and more suitable candidates could not apply. On that premise, appeal has been allowed vide impugned order Annexure P-4 dated 6.11.2008 by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The Financial Commissioner vide the other impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 17.12.2009 has upheld order Annexure P-4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards Annexure P-1 to say that Naib Tehsildar-cum- Assistant Collector, Grade-II, Amritsar, vide order dated 2.9.2007 directed conduct of munadi in the village by beat of drum. The last date for submission of applications was given as 17.9.2007. Entry made by Barkat Singh, Chowkidar on 12.9.2007 indicates that by beat of drum, munadi was conducted with the content that if anyone is desirous to apply for newly created post of Lambardar, he should present his application before 17.9.2007 in Court of Naib Tehsildar-I. Copy of the contents were pasted at CWP No.4442 of 2010 -3- common places. Accordingly entry was made under Rapat (Roznamcha) No.15 dated 12.9.2007. Learned counsel contends that in response to first munadi, when application was not received, second munadi was conducted under orders of Assistant Collector-II, Amritsar, on 24.10.2007, placed on record as Annexure P-2. There is an endorsement by Chowkidar that munadi, indeed, was conducted to say that applications be filed before 12.11.2007. Learned counsel contends that in response to Annexure P-2, the petitioner applied and he was the only candidate. No de-merit can be traced in the case of the petitioner and in such circumstances, orders passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Annexures P-4 and P-5 are whimsical. In impugned order Annexure P-4 all that has been said is that the munadi was only on paper and physically no munadi was conducted. On perusal of the order, I find that the Commissioner did not order any enquiry to be effected by Revenue Officer at the Tehsil level or District level to enquire as to whether munadi was only on paper or, indeed, it was done by beat of drum and by pasting the contents at common places. In the absence of such exercise, merely on the affidavits sworn by certain persons, it could not be held that the munadi was only on paper. Order also does not indicate that any action was taken against the Chowkidar, who merely recorded factum of conduct of munadi in papers and did not, in fact, conduct munadi by beat of drum or by affixation at common places. In the considered opinion of this Court, merely on the affidavits taken by the authority, it could not have been held that munadi was not conducted. I have also taken note of the fact that munadi was conducted twice, once under Annexure P-1 and CWP No.4442 of 2010 -4- thereafter, under Annexure P-2. The Punjab Administration Manual envisages a situation where there is only one applicant. Per se it cannot be said that appointment of the petitioner as Lambardar is illegal. The Revenue Authorities have recommended the name of the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Commissioner, in the facts and circumstances noted above, are found to be whimsical, unreasonable, without relevant basis and therefore, the same cannot be justified. Accordingly, orders Annexures P4 and P-6 dated 6.11.2008 and dated 17.12.2009 respectively are hereby quashed. The petition is accordingly allowed. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 6.4.2011 akm