CWP No.10234 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.10234 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9.8.2010 Ram Parkash .....Petitioner Vs. The Financial Commissioner Revenue (Appeals-II) Punjab and others ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Hira, Advocate for respondent no.4. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) Prayer in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 24.9.2008, passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh, setting aside the orders dated 5.9.2006 and 28.2.2006, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector,Hoshiarpur. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Lambardar by the Collector. His appointment was affirmed by the Commissioner, but was reversed by the Financial Commissioner, on the ground that the Commissioner committed errors in referring to the facts of the case. It is argued that even if the Commissioner made an error in CWP No.10234 of 2009 2 appraising the facts, the Financial Commissioner could not have directed the appointment of respondent no.4, without reference to the order passed by the Collector and the facts considered by the Collector while rejecting respondent no.4's candidature. Counsel for respondent no.4, on the other hand, submits that as the Financial Commissioner examined the matter in its entirety and held that respondent no.4 is more meritorious being better qualified and younger in age, his order appointing respondent no.4, is legal and valid. It is further argued that as the order passed by the Commissioner is based on incorrect facts, the Financial Commissioner was duty bound to consider the merits and direct appointment of a suitable candidate. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The Collector rejected the candidature of respondent no.4, on the ground that as he is running a tailoring shop in village Bassi Gulam Hussain, he would not be available to the residents of the village, on a regular basis. The Commissioner affirmed this order, but on wrong facts. The Financial Commissioner, pointed out the errors committed by the Commissioner but thereafter proceeded to commit a similar error in appointing respondent no.4. Before proceeding to abruptly appoint respondent no.4, the Financial Commissioner failed to deal with the finding recorded, by the Collector that respondent no.4 is running a tailoring shop. In addition, the Financial Commissioner has not recorded any finding that the choice of the Collector is, in any manner, arbitrary, perverse or contrary to law. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is partly allowed, the CWP No.10234 of 2009 3 order dated 24.9.2008, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Financial Commissioner to decide the revision filed by respondent no.4 afresh and in accordance with law. During the pendency of the revision, the duties of the Lambardar shall be performed by the person, in whose favour the Sanad Lambardari subsists. Parties are directed to appear before the Financial Commissioner Revenue (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh, on 27.9.2010. 9.8.2010 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE