IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.13754 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 5, 2011 AKALJOT SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE, PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition is directed against orders dated 13.11.2007 and 19.3.2009, Annexures P-9 and P-11, respectively, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab. 2 The facts are that Satkartar Singh, respondent No.4, was appointed as Lambardar for Village Kasam Bhatti, Tehsil Jaito, District Faridkot, by the Collector vide order dated 3.2.2003 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner carried an appeal before the Commissioner, which has been allowed vide order dated 11.6.2003 (Annexure P-7). Respondent No.4 challenged order (Annexure P-7), passed by the Commissioner, before the Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure Civil Writ Petition No.13754 of 2010 2 P-9), impugned in this writ petition, the order passed by the Collector has been upheld on the ground that the Commissioner did not have any legal authority to appoint Lambardar. It has been held that the choice of Collector cannot be disturbed unless and until the order is found to be perverse. 3 It seems that the petitioner filed a review application on the ground that the petitioner is more educated, has better merit and comparative merit be considered. The review application has been dismissed vide order dated 19.3.2009 (Annexure P-11). 4 The comparative merit of the candidates has been given in the writ petition in para-8. The petitioner is 27 years of age whereas respondent No.4 is 41 years of age; the petitioner owns 5 acres of land whereas respondent No.4 owns 7 acres of land and the petitioner is 10+2 class pass whereas respondent No.4 is 7th class pass. The Gram Panchayat recommended the name of the petitioner. The petitioner further is holder of Certificate of First Aid, issued by the President of India; holds the certificate of National Cadet Corps (Trekking), holds 'A' grade certificate issued by the Director, National Cadet Corps; has been active worker for child rights; his mother remained Sarpanch of the village and Assistant Collector Ist Grade and Sub Divisional Magistrate recommended the name of the petitioner. The father of respondent No.4 also remained Sarpanch of the Village. 5 It has further been brought out that grand father of respondent No.4, who was Lambardar of the village, died in the Civil Writ Petition No.13754 of 2010 3 year 1977, however, the authorities were not informed and respondent No.4 kept on working as Lambardar for a number of years. 6 Considering the above facts, the Commissioner accepted the appeal of the petitioner and set aside the order passed by the Collector. Although the principle, as mentioned in impugned orders (Annexures P-9 and P-11), passed by the Financial Commissioner, is required to be followed viz. the choice of Collector cannot be disturbed unless and until the order passed by the Collector is found to be perverse, however, the appellate authority has the right to compare the comparative merit. If substantial difference is found indicating that injustice is being caused, surely, the appellate authority can interfere and set aside the order passed by the Collector. 7 In the case in hand, clearly, the petitioner has a clear edge over respondent No.4, insomuch as, the petitioner is more educated, is more popular and has substantial social service to his credit. Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules states that services rendered to the State by himself or family, personal influence, character, ability, the strength and importance of community to which the Headman belongs, etc., are required to be taken into account. The petitioner has served in the said fields extensively and, therefore, no fault can be traced, legal or factual, in the order (Annexure P-7), passed by the Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner has not taken into account the comparative merit and the context in which the Commissioner passed the order. Civil Writ Petition No.13754 of 2010 4 8 In view of the above, orders (Annexures P-9 and P- 11), passed by the Financial Commissioner are rendered illegal and are hereby quashed. 9 The petition is, accordingly, allowed. April 5, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?