CWP No.22889 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.22889 of 2010 Date of decision : 28.3.2011 Sukhwant Singh ........Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr.Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate and Mr.Kuldeep Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sonu Chahal, Addl.AG, Punjab Mr.J.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No.4 --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : This petition has been filed by Sukhwant Singh praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order Annexure P-1, passed by District Collector, Ferozpur dated 5.2.2009, whereby respondent No.4 Devinder Singh has been appointed as Lambardar of Village Chak Janisar (Patti Kahan Singh), Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozpur. Petitioner carried an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozpur Division, Ferozpur which has been dismissed vide order Annexure P-2 dated 11.6.2009, order passed by the Collector has been upheld. The petitioner preferred revision petition which has also been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order Annexure P-3 dated 9.9.2010. Orders Annexures P-2 and P-3 are also under challenge. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the District Collector did not hear the petitioner and therefore, the order rendered CWP No.22889 of 2010 -2- is illegal. Collector is the appointing authority who is required to consider the comparative merit of the candidates. The petitioner did not appear before the District Collector at the point in time when the comparative merit of the candidates was to be considered for appointment of Lambardar by the Collector. The Commissioner in appellate proceedings, however, has considered the comparative merit of the petitioner viz a viz that of the private respondent. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is more qualified as compared to the respondent. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Commissioner in appellate jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his argument that the comparative merit of the petitioner has not been considered. It has not been shown that manifest injustice has been caused. Order passed by the Commissioner has been upheld by the Financial Commissioner. I have considered the comparative merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4 and am of the opinion that the qualification of the respondent being a graduate, is not inadequate for discharge of duties of Lambardar under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. No disability in the claim of respondent No.4 can be traced. Under the circumstances, impugned orders do not call for any interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 28.3.2011 akm