IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.869 of 2011 Date of Decision: January 18, 2011 Tek Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Ms. Poonam Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Challenge in this petition is to Order dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Financial Commissioner. Post of Lambardar from Scheduled Caste category fell vacant for village Langrian, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur. Munadi was conducted. Only the petitioner applied for the post. Respondent No.5 (Jagtar Singh) subsequently applied after due date before the higher authorities. Name of private respondent namely Jagtar Singh was also considered. Name of CWP No.869 of 2011 [2] the petitioner was recommended by the revenue officials. The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by respondent No.4 i.e. District Collector, Sangrur, vide Order dated 10.6.2005 (Annexure P-2). 2. Order Annexure P-2 came to be challenged at the instance of respondent No.5. The case was remanded back to the Collector for reconsideration vide Order dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, considering the fact that petitioner was working in Punjab State Electricity Board as Line-man and there was a possibility of his transfer. In these circumstances, availability of the petitioner in the village to serve the villagers is required to be seen. 3. The order was challenged in revision before the Financial Commissioner by the petitioner as also the private respondent. Vide Order dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure P-4), the Financial Commissioner dismissed both the petitions. It has been held that order of remand to the effect that petitioner would continue as Lambardar in case he is able to satisfy the Collector about his availability in the village, has been upheld. In case, the petitioner is not able to satisfy the Collector, a fresh CWP No.869 of 2011 [3] proclamation for filling up the post would be made and all eligible candidates including respondent No.5 would be at liberty to apply. 4. The District Collector again considered the matter and decided the same vide Order dated 13.12.2007 (Annexure P-5), holding that petitioner Tek Singh, who is working in Punjab State Electricity Board cannot remain available to the villagers on Lambardari job, and therefore, is not a suitable candidate for the post. Under the circumstances, fresh Munadi be conducted to fill the post of Lambardar. 5. Order of District Collector was challenged. The appeal was dismissed vide Order dated 10.6.2009 (Annexure P-8). Petitioner challenged order Annexure P-8 before the Financial Commissioner. Vide Order dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-9), revision of the petitioner has been dismissed. 6. I have considered the legality of the order in the context of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been available in the village for more than 20 years, and therefore, there is no occasion to presume that petitioner would not be available. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner being the CWP No.869 of 2011 [4] only applicant was required to be appointed and appointment maintained. 8. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. On a specific query of the Court, learned counsel admits that the petitioner is serving on a transferable post. 10. In view of the fact that petitioner is serving on a transferable post, I find no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the Financial Commissioner in Order Annexure P-9 to the effect that there are chances that petitioner might not be available to the villagers. The findings recorded by the District Collector in that regard have been upheld. 11. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 12. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) January 18, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?