CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15826 OF 2007 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: FEBRUARY 02, 2009 Harninder Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. M. L. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Addl.A.G., Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. K. S. Grewal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner and respondent No.2 were the candidates for appointment as Lambardar of village Hansali. After considering the merits of respective candidates, Collector appointed respondent No.2 as Lambardar. This order was challenged by the petitioner before Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The appeal was accepted and the case was remanded back to Collector for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15826 OF 2007 :{ 2 }: reconsidering the merit of the petitioner and respondent No.2. This order was then impugned by respondent No.2 by filing a revision before Financial Commissioner, who accepted the same and set- aside the order passed by the Commissioner. That is how the petitioner is now before this Court through the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by making reference to the qualification of petitioner as well as respondent No.2 as noticed by the Collector, made an attempt to show that the petitioner is more meritorious and hence, should have been appointed by the Collector as Lambardar of the village. The Commissioner, while interfering with the order passed by the Collector, took a view that the petitioner was more meritorious. Commissioner also noticed that the candidature of the petitioner was primarily rejected on the ground that he was found to be in illegal possession of Panchayat land, as per the order passed on 21.3.1996. The Commissioner has ignored this order simply on the ground that the petitioner was allowed to contest the Panchayat election and he remained Sarpanch of the Village from June 1998 to June 2003. Finding this to be contradictory, he has remanded the case for reconsideration to the Collector. The Financial Commissioner has rightly interfered with this order of remand by noticing that the petitioner was in illegal possession of the Panchayat land in the year 1995-96 and submission that this aspect was to be seen at the time of application i.e. in April 2005, would not make much difference. If a person has been in illegal possession of Panchayat land, then this fact would certainly go against him for appointment as Lambardar. The order passed by Collector did not suffer from any infirmity or perversity to call for interference by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15826 OF 2007 :{ 3 }: Commissioner and he was not justified in remanding the case back to the Collector. Financial Commissioner, while accepting the revision has observed that the Collector had preferred a person who was free from stigma and as such, Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the said order. The view taken by the Financial Commissioner is legal and otherwise justified and as such, would not call for any interference. Dismissed. February 02, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE