IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition 2018 of 2008 Date of decision: 23.11.2009 Ram Sarup …Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab and ors …Respondents Present: Mr Jatin Salwan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr HS Gill, DAG Punjab. Mr GS Nagra, Advocate, for respondent-3 S.S. SARON, J. Sh Khushi Ram, Lambardar of village Ahrana, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur died on 1.12.2002. Accordingly process for filing the vacant office of Lambardar was initiated. A proclamation was made in village Ahrana inviting applications for consideration for appointment as a Lambardar. In response to the proclamation, 11 applicants including Ram Sarup (petitioner) and Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) applied. The matter was considered by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur, who, vide order dated 27.1.2005 (P1) found Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) to be a suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar. It was inter alia noticed by the District Collector as regards Ram Sarup (petitioner) that he was 62 years of age. He had studied upto 9th Class. Besides, he owned 33 Kanals of land. The petitioner, it was also noticed was son of deceased Lambardar and was an ex-serviceman. His rivals had, however, submitted that the 1 CWP 2018 of 2008 petitioner had been convicted in a private complaint for commission of the office under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hoshiarpur. However, he was acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur, vide judgment dated 20.1.2005. Besides, the petitioner had a pesticides shop at village Ahrana Khurd; so, it may not be possible for him to leave the shop for the work relating to Lambardari. As against this, Gurnam Singh (respondent-3), it was observed, was 51 years of age and had studied upto 7th Class. He owned 179 Kanals of land. The District Collector observed Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) to be a mature person and keeping good health. There was nothing against him. Accordingly, he was recommended for appointment as a Lambardar. The petitioner, aggrieved against the said order appointing Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) as a Lambardar, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who, vide order dated 19.8.2005 (P2) accepted the same. The learned Commissioner held the petitioner to have a clear edge over Gurnam Singh (respondent-3). It was observed that he was son of the deceased Lambardar and had worked as a Sarbrah Lambardar and had collected Chowkidara from the villagers without any complaint. He had rendered 28 years valuable service to the Nation and had fought the wars of 1965 and 1971. Besides, he had studied upto 10+2. He was a disciplined soldier and had a vast experience of life. As regards the shop, it was observed, that it was in village Ahrana itself. Therefore, his availability in the village was very much assured. Gurnam Singh (respondent-3), aggrieved against the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner Appeals-II Punjab who, vide order dated 2 CWP 2018 of 2008 12.9.2007 (P3), set aside the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division Jalandhar, and restored that of the District Collector, Hoshiarpur. The learned Financial Commissioner held that the Commissioner had committed a serious illegality in interfering with the concurrent recommendations made by the Tehsildar and the SDM Hoshiarpur in favour of Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) which were duly approved by the District Collector, Hoshiarpur. It was held that the Commissioner did not find any infirmity in the order of the Collector, but on evaluation of the record, he thought that Ram Sarup (petitioner) was a better candidate. It was observed that from the record, Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) had an edge over his rival candidate. Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) was held to be more mature, having good health at the age of 51 years and a permanent resident of village Ahrana and there was nothing against him. He was always available to the villagers. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, had rightly assessed the merits of the candidates and found the petitioner to be more suitable for appointment as a Lambardar. It is submitted that the petitioner has studied upto 10+2. He has rendered service of 28 years in the Army. Besides, his father was also a Lambardar of the village. It is further submitted that the petitioner has participated in 1965 and 1971 wars and he earned 6 medals. He was earning pension of more than Rs 7,000/- per month. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, is liable to be upheld. In response, learned counsel for respondent-3 has submitted that except for the Commissioner, all the revenue authorities have found Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) to be more meritorious and have appointed 3 CWP 2018 of 2008 him as a Lambardar. It is submitted that respondent-3 is younger in age and he has been working as a Lambardar since 10.1.2008 and there is no complaint against him. Besides, respondent-3 has more holding than the petitioner. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record. In the matter of appointment of a Lambardar, as is well-known, it is the administrative choice and prerogative of the District Collector and a selection made by him on relative assessment of the records and consideration of the material before him, is not to be lightly undone unless and until it is shown that there is some gross illegality, irregularity or perversity in the order appointing a person as a Lambardar. In the present case, the revenue authorities including that of the Tehsildar, the SDM, the District Collector and the Financial Commissioner have found Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) to be more suitable and have appointed him as a Lambardar. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, however, had found petitioner to be more suitable. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been an ex-serviceman and has rendered 28 years service to the Nation. He has participated in the 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pak wars. Besides, he is getting a pension of Rs 7,000/- per month. However, 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 findings and conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities in the matter of appointment of a Lambardar. Besides, this Court is not to substitute its decision for that reached at by the revenue authorities. In exercise of power of judicial review, this Court has a limited jurisdiction and is ordinarily 4 CWP 2018 of 2008 concerned with the decision making process and is not to interfere with the decision that has been reached at by the revenue authorities unless it is shown that the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice or is otherwise perverse or irrational. Perverse would mean a decision which is improper or contradictory but in the context of judicial review symbolizes a decision not supported by any evidence and irrational would be a decision which is absurd or illogical - a decision which no person if properly advised on the facts of the case would take. In Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 757, it was observed by the Supreme Court, in a case where the appointment of a Lambardar had been made by the Collector by considering the merits of the candidates, by following the procedure laid down in the rules and by observing the principles of natural justice that the findings of the Collector could not be said to be perverse and a writ Court is not to interfere with findings of facts. Therefore, the decision reached at by the Collector and upheld by the Financial Commissioner calls for no interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It may also be noticed that at the time of passing the order dated 27.1.2005 (P1) by the District Collector, the petitioner was 62 years of age. By now he is 69 years of age. As against this, Gurnam Singh (respondent-3) was 51 years of age at that time and by now he is about 55 years of age. Therefore, to upset the decision at this stage keeping in view the age of the petitioner would also not be proper. In the circumstances, no ground for interference is called for with the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 12.9.2007 (P3). Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 5 CWP 2018 of 2008 23.11.2009. ( S.S.SARON ) ASR JUDGE 6