C.W.P.No.4950 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.4950 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12.10.2011 Charanji Lal son of Ram Asra ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Amrik Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The conspectus of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, is that in the wake of death of Gurbachan Singh, the post of Lambardar in the scheduled caste category of village Kariyam, District Nawanshahr had fallen vacant. It was claimed that as only petitioner Charanji Lal applied, therefore, the Collector appointed him on the indicated post of Lambardar of the village, by way of order dated 13.3.2007 (Annexure P2). 2. Dissatisfied with the order (Annexure P2), Harbhajan Singh son of Bhim Chand (respondent No.3), claiming himself to be an eligible candidate for the post of Lambardar, filed the appeal, which was dismissed on technical ground (that since he (respondent No.3) did not submit the application within the prescribed period before the Naib Tehsildar, so, he has no right to challenge the order of Collector in appeal) by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, by means of order dated 21.8.2007 (Annexure P4). 3. Still aggrieved by the orders (Annexures P2 and P4), respondent No.3 filed the revision, which was accepted and the case was remanded back to the District Collector, to decide the matter afresh, by the Financial Commissioner (respondent No.1), by virtue of impugned order dated 13.1.2011 (Annexure P6). C.W.P.No.4950 of 2011 -2- 4. Sequelly, the petitioner did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P6) and preferred the present writ petition, invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 6. As is evident from the record that the Collector has only considered the candidature of petitioner Charanji Lal for the post of Lambardar in question. Although the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner have noticed that the application for the appointment of Lambardar filed by Harbhajan Singh (respondent No.3) was pending on the date of order of the Collector. Since he claims himself to be brother of deceased Lambardar and being a permanent resident of the village, so, his claim was illegally ignored by the Collector in this connection. 7. On the contrary, many criminal cases, including the case, vide FIR No.49 of 2006, pertaining to Police Station Phillaur and FIR No.179 of 2005, pertaining to Police Station Nawanshahr were registered against petitioner Charanji Lal for committing fraud and cheating the people on the pretext of sending them abroad. Therefore, the Collector was required to consider the pros and cons of the respective merits and de-merits of the candidates for the indicated post, but he has ignored the claim of respondent No.3 with impunity and committed an error in this respect. The Financial Commissioner has duly rectified the mistake committed by the Collector as well as the Commissioner in this regard and directed the collector to initiate the fresh proceedings for appointment of a new Lambardar, vide impugned order (Annexure P6), the operative part of which is (paras 3 & 4) as under:- “3. Having considered the rival contentions, I am of the view that the Collector and the Commissioner were in error in appointing the respondent Chiranji Lal as Scheduled Caste Lambardar of village Karyam. C.W.P.No.4950 of 2011 -3- The two FIRs cited by petitioner's counsel clearly show that the respondent had prima facie been found indulging in the unethical and immoral practice of illegal migration and has duped many people in the area. This practice is a serious scourge in many parts of the State and especially in villages to which the lambardari relates. Respondent's counsel tried to rebut this contention, contending that actually it was the respondent's brother who was working as a travel agent and sending people abroad and the respondent had been named in the FIRs only because of the general tendency to rope in family members of an accused. I am not impressed by this argument. As noted above, FIRs have been registered against the respondent Chiranji Lal in more than one district and the assertion that there were other FIRs also besides tow cited by petitioner's counsel has not been effectively rebutted. No doubt it has been held that mere pendency of the FIR does not disentitle a person from being eligible for the post of lambardar, but in the instant case the nature of the alleged crime and the fact that multiple FIRs have been registered cannot be ignored. I, therefore, held that the respondent Chiranji Lal is not a fit person to be appointed as lambardar. 4. This petition is accordingly accepted, the orders dated 13.3.07 of the District Collector and dated 21.8.07 of the Commissioner are set aside and it is ordered that proceedings for appointment of a new lambardar may be initiated by the District Collector, S.B.S.Nagar.” 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not point out any legal violation and material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the impugned order (Annexure P6) of the Financial Commissioner is illegal and would invite any interference in this relevant behalf. 9. Meaning thereby, the Financial Commissioner has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is illegal and perverse. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so, the impugned order (Annexure P6) deserves to be and is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. C.W.P.No.4950 of 2011 -4- 10. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. 11. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. 12. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this writ petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 12.10.2011 Judge AS