C.W.P No.13014 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.W.P No.13014 of 2008 Date of Decision: 07.01.2009 Gian Singh ....Petitioner. Versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.S. Khehar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. ... J.S. Khehar, J. Gurdeep Singh, Lamberdar of village Naushera, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, died on 15.10.1997, giving rise to the situation for selecting a new Lamberdar for the aforesaid village. The Naib Tehsildar, Bhunga, accordingly, initiated proceedings for filling up the post of Lamberdar for village Naushera, by issuing a proclamation inviting applications from willing and eligible candidates. In response to the aforesaid proclamation, eleven candidates applied for appointment as Lamberdar. The Tehsildar, Bhunga, recommended the name of Kulwinder Singh (one of the eleven candidates) for the post of Lamberdar and forwarded the same to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. The District Collector, Hoshiarpur, having considered the comparative merits of C.W.P No.13014 of 2008 2 the rival candidates, appointed Gian Singh (the petitioner herein) as Lamberdar, by his order dated 23.11.2004. Satnam Singh (respondent No.4), dissatisfied with the order dated 23.11.2004, whereby Gian Singh was appointed as Lamberdar, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. The aforesaid appeal was accepted. The appointment of Gian Singh as Lamberdar was set aside. In the place of Gian Singh, the Appellate Authority ordered the appointment of Satnam Singh as Lamberdar. In so far as the decision of the Appellate Authority is concerned, it would be pertinent to mention, that besides comparing the merits of the rival candidates, the Appellate Authority expressly noticed that Gian Singh was more than 67 years old and had weak knees, and was, as such, not suitable for discharging the duties of the post of Lamberdar. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 29.7.2006, the petitioner Gian Singh filed a revision petition, challenging the appellate order. While adjudicating upon the claims of the rival parties in the revision petition, the Revisional Authority also took into consideration the fact, that Satnam Singh (respondent No.4) was 40 years of age, whereas Gian Singh (petitioner) was 67 years of age “and in failing health” “due to knee problem”. Having noticed the aforesaid factual position, the Revisional Authority found no justification in interfering in the order passed by the Appellant Authority. And as such, the revision petition filed by Gian Singh came to be dismissed on 30.4.2008. The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 29.7.2006, as well as, by the Revisional Authority dated 30.4.2008 are subject matter of challenge at the hands of Gian Singh through the instant writ petition. C.W.P No.13014 of 2008 3 When the issue of failing health, as also, the knee problem reflected in the appellate order dated 29.7.2006, and the revisional order dated 30.4.2008 was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he repudiated the same on the basis of a medical certificate dated 29.6.2006, which has been placed on the record of this case as Annexure P- 3. On the strength of the aforesaid medical certificate, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the determinations of failing health and weak knees vis-a-vis the petitioner Gian Singh, at the hands of the Appellate Authority, as well as, the Revisional Authority were wholly misconceived. In order to test the veracity of the instant submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to extract hereunder the medical certificate placed on the record of this case as Annexure P-3. The same is, accordingly, being extracted hereunder:- “O.P.D. No.8137 Dated 29.6.2006 Name: Gian Singh s/o Ram Kishan Age 68 years, Sex Male, Height 5’ 9” Weight 65 Kg. General Examination: Identification Marks :i) Old Scar mark 3.5 cm x 3 cm on the anterior or (2) leg 10 cm above (R) ankle. Build: Average. Colour of Eyes: Brown, Colour of Skin : Fair Pulse 921 mt. (R) BP 130/88 Mg. Eyes normal Respiratory System Chest Measurement: Insp : 32 inches Exp: 34 inches. This is to certify that I have examined Mr. Gian Singh son of C.W.P No.13014 of 2008 4 Ram Kishan and find him medically fit. Sd/- Medical Officer 2.6.2006 P.H.C. Bhunga.” Having perused the aforesaid medical certificate dated 29.6.2006, this Court was prima-facie of the view, that the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, as well as, by the Revisional Authority could not be repudiated on the basis of the strength of the aforesaid medical certificate. It was, therefore, that this Court by its order dated 29.7.2008 directed the petitioner to place on the record of this case the revision petition filed by the petitioner so as to determine the stance adopted by the petitioner in respect of the findings of failing health, as well as, weak knees while impugning the order passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, dated 29.7.2006 before the Revisional Authority. In furtherance of the aforesaid direction, CM Nos.16648-49 were filed by the petitioner, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner Gian Singh under section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, so as to impugn the order dated 29.7.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, was placed on the record of this case as Annexure P-9. We have perused Annexure P-9. Unfortunately for the petitioner, the petitioner did not repudiate the findings recorded by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, in his order dated 29.7.2006 in connection with the weak knees of Gian Singh. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it would be natural to assume, that the petitioner did not contest the determination rendered by the authorities on the issue of defective knees of the petitioner. That being so, and keeping in mind the age of the petitioner, which as per the order of the Appellate C.W.P No.13014 of 2008 5 Authority dated 29.7.2006, was more than 67 years, and at the present juncture, must be deemed to be in the vicinity of 70, is obviously a person who cannot be chosen as against the merits of the younger candidate Satnam Singh (respondent No.4). It would be improper for us, if we do not take into consideration the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Sardool Singh Vs. The Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab and others, 2000(4) RCR(Civil) 37, on which learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance during the course of hearing. Referring to Sardool Singh’s case (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following observations recorded therein:- “A perusal of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner indicates that even though the third respondent at the relevant time was 60 years of age, while the petitioner was 40 years old, the respondent had worked for three years as a Lamberdar. He had also remained a Member of the Panchayat on three occasions. He was more acceptable to the village community. Still further the Financial Commissioner has observed that the selection had to be made by the Collector. Once the selection had been properly made, the higher authorities would interfere only if the view taken by the Collector was found to be perverse or contrary to law. Since the order passed by the Collector was just and reasonable, the Commissioner should not have interfered with it. “ Having considered the decision rendered in Sardool Singh’s case (supra), we are of the view, that the decision in Sardool Singh’s case (supra) is not C.W.P No.13014 of 2008 6 applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, the Appellate Authority had arrived at a concrete finding, that on account of the age and infirmity in knees, the petitioner (Gian Singh) was not suitable for appointment as Lamberdar vis-a-vis the comparative merits of respondent No.4 (Satnam Singh). As such, it is not possible for us to read the decision rendered by this Court in Sardool Singh’s case (supra) so as to grant any benefit to the petitioner. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( J.S. Khehar ) Judge ( Nirmaljit Kaur ) Judge. 07.01.2009 sk.