CWP No. 11318 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 11318 of 2009 Date of decision : 30.7.2009 Chamkaur Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. G.N. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sherry K. Singla, Advocate for the Caveator/respondent No.5. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner aggrieved against his non-selection as Lambardar of village Khanpur, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur and the appointment of Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) as Lambardar has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab and the order dated 21.8.2006 (Annexure P3) passed by the District Collector, Sangrur. The earlier Lambardar of village Khanpur, Tehsil Malerkotla District Sangrur was removed from the office of Lambardar. Accordingly, the process was initiated to fill up the vacancy. Five candidates including Chamkaur Singh (petitioner) and Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) applied for the post of Lambardar. The matter was inquired into by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade (Naib Tehsildar), Malerkotla and in terms of his report dated 17.4.2006 he recommended the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade (Tehsildar), Malerkotla in his report dated 7.6.2006 (Annexure P1) also recommended the name CWP No. 11318 of 2009 2 of the petitioner. The matter was then considered by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade (SDM), Malerkotla and he also in his report dated 22.6.2006 (Annexure P2) recommended the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that apart from the said revenue authorities, two Lambardars of the village and 42 other witnesses also recommended the name of the petitioner for the post of Lambardar. Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) who has been appointed as Lambardar, it is stated, is working as a Teacher in Sarvodaya International School and he remains on duty from 7.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and due to this, he would not be available in the village. The District Collector after considering the applicants for the post of Lambardar who were left in the field after withdrawal by some candidates recommended the name of Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) for appointment as Lambardar vide his order dated 21.8.2006 (Annexure P3). Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala which was accepted vide order dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P4). Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) filed a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab who vide order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P5) accepted the same and set aside the order of the Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab and dated 21.8.2006 (Annexure P3) passed by the District Collector, Sangrur has filed the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Lower Revenue officials had favourably recommended the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar and the District Collector gravely erred in ignoring the said recommendations and in appointing Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) as Lambardar. It is submitted that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he is in illegal possession of Panchayat land, whereas the revenue officers had after perusing the record and inspecting the spot had found that the petitioner was not in any illegal possession of the Panchayat land. It is submitted that the District CWP No. 11318 of 2009 3 Collector and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals II) have not kept in mind the fact that Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) is working as a teacher in a school and he remains on duty from 7.30 am to 4 pm and due to this, he would not be available in the village. Besides, two Lambardars of the village and others had made recommendation in favour of the petitioner, whereas Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) is close to political persons such as Sarpanch and panchs. It is submitted that the well-reasoned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner has wrongly been set aside in an arbitrary manner by the Financial Commissioner who has also wrongly concluded that the choice of the Collector in appointing Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) should not be interfered with. In response, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5/Caveator has submitted that the petitioner is in illegal possession of Shamlat land of the village comprised in Khasra No.431 Khewat No.538 in respect of which the Panchayat had also recorded proceedings on 1.5.2007. Besides, it is submitted that the mere fact that Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) is working in a school is no ground to non-suit him as admittedly even a Government employee can be appointed as a Lambardar if he is otherwise eligible. It is further submitted that a teacher would be more suitable as he is an educated and more qualified than the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. The petitioner is B.A. Part-II pass, whereas Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) is M.A., B.Ed. As such, in view of his education, he would be able to render better service for the village. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter it may be noticed that in the matter of appointment of Lambardar the choice of the District Collector is normally not to be interfered with unless the order passed by him in appointing a Lambardar suffers from some gross irregularity, perversity or patent error. The appointment of Lambardar is primarily the prerogative and administrative act of the District Collector. The District Collector on the comparative assessment of the merits of candidates for appointment as Lambardar in his order dated 21.8.2006 CWP No. 11318 of 2009 4 (Annexure P3) found Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) to be more qualified than others. It was noticed that he was working as a private teacher and along with his service he does agriculture work also. It was observed that he is young and had good reputation in the village. The petitioner, it was observed, was in illegal possession of Panchayat Land. Accordingly, Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) was found more suitable. In appeal, the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide his order dated 5.9.2007 (Annexure P4) was of the view that the District Collector should give consideration to the recommendations of the lower Revenue Officers who were working at the cutting edge level and were in a position to assess the suitability of the candidates. Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5), it was observed, was working as a teacher and he could not be expected to spare much time to discharge his duties of Lambardar and work for the welfare of the village. Therefore, the petitioner according to the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala was a better candidate than the respondent. The appeal of the petitioner against the order of the Collector was accepted and the case was remanded to the District Collector, Sangrur with the direction to decide the case in the light of the observations made therein. The learned Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 14.1.2009 (Annexure P5), however, held that the District Collector, Sangrur had rightly appointed Jagpal Singh (respondent No.5) as Lambardar. It was observed that the Commissioner had erred in remanding the case to the District Collector when every fact relating to the case was available on file. Accordingly, the order dated 21.8.2006 (Annexure P3) passed by the District Collector was restored and upheld. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities in the choice of Lambardar. This Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence and material on record and thereby re-determine as to who would be the better choice for the post of Lambardar. This is especially so if such findings could have been reasonably arrived at and are properly thought out besides CWP No. 11318 of 2009 5 being logical. This is also more so for the reason that the jurisdiction of this Court is a supervisory jurisdiction and this Court is not to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that the findings of facts reached at by the revenue authorities on appreciation of evidence are not to be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. The jurisdiction of this Court is to correct an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record by a writ but an error of fact is normally not to be interfered with unless it is shown to be perverse which no person properly advised on facts would have reached at or in a case where the revenue authorities have failed to take into consideration in the decision making process relevant facts which were liable to be taken into account or have taken into consideration irrelevant facts which may require interference by this Court. In the present case, none of the said conditions have been brought out. Therefore, if the order of the competent authority does not suffer any jurisdictional infirmity or patent legal error warranting issuance a writ in the nature of certiorari. There is no infirmity in the decision reached at or in the decision making process. The merits of the decision is not to be interfered with. The District Collector in his order dated 21.8.2006 (Annexure P3) has observed that the petitioner is in illegal possession of Panchayat land. Nothing has been brought on record to dislodge the said finding or show that the said finding is erroneous. Rather learned counsel for the Caveator/respondent No.5 has submitted that the Gram Panchayat on 1.5.2007 recorded proceedings that the petitioner was in illegal possession of Shamlat land comprised in khasra No.431 and that he be given a notice of 15 days to vacate the land of the Gram Panchayat otherwise, the Gram Panchayat would be constrained to take recourse to necessary proceedings. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 30, 2009 amit