IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1372 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 01.07.2010 Bishan Dass …..Appellant versus Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab and others ……Respondent CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Augustine George Masih Present: Mr.Rai Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM No.3627 of 2009 In view of reasons mentioned in application it is allowed and 5 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.1372 of 2009 The petitioner and also the private respondent, when both were in government service had moved applications for appointment as Lamberdar, the process for which was started in the year 2003. Petitioner’s claim was rejected on merits. It was not taken against him that he was in government service and that is why he cannot be appointed as a Lamberdar. The petitioner went in appeal and revision and failed. He came to this Court by filing CWP No.10560 of 2009, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 20.7.2009, by observing as under:- “After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the choice of Lambardar is primarily the Letters Patent Appeal No.1372 of 2009(O&M) prerogative and administrative act of the District Collector. His selection is normally not to be undone unless and until it is shown that the same suffers from gross irregularity, perversity or there is some patent error in his appointment. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities in the choice of Lambardar. This Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence and material on record and thereby re-determine as to who would be the better choice for the post of Lambardar. Review of the quasi judicial orders to that extent is limited. Even otherwise, it is admitted case that mere employment in the State Government or any of its instrumentalities is not per se a disqualification for appointment of village Lambardar. A Division Bench of this Court in Amarjeet Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, 2001(1) RCR (449 held that mere factum of an employment with the State Government is not a disqualification for appointment as Lambardar. In the circumstances, the revenue authorities having held Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) to be more suitable and his mere service as Government employee not to be a disqualification, the choice of revenue authorities is not liable to be interfered with.” We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Once the petitioner himself while in government service has applied for the post of Lamberdar, he cannot raise an objection against other candidate that he, being in government, service cannot be appointed as a Lamberdar. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 01.07.2010 (Augustine George Masih) gk Judge 2