LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: April 25, 2011. Parties Name Harbans Singh ...APPELLANT. VERSUS The Financial Commissioner and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. A.K.Walia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondent No. 1. Mr. B.S.Jaswal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT CM No. 1798 of 2011: This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 23 days in filing the appeal. Application is accompanied by an affidavit. In view of reasoning given in LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2011(O&M) -2- the application, it is allowed and delay in filing the LPA is condoned. LPA No. 687 of 2011. In this appeal, dispute is with regard to the post of Lambardar in the village Jalalabad, tehsil Khadur Sahib, district Tarn Taran. To fill up the above said vacancy, applications were invited. Appellant, respondents No. 2 and 3 were the contesting candidates. The Collector after verifying the comparative merit of all the contesting candidates, appointed respondent No. 2 Sukhwinder Singh as Lambardar of the village by observing as under: “After hearing the candidates and perusing the record, I have reached the conclusion that the candidates Sukhwinder Singh owns more property than the other two candidates Harbans Singh and Wariam Singh. Besides the panchayat of the village has also recommended the name of Sukhwinder Singh for appointment as Lambardar by giving opportunity to some person other than any family member of Karnail Singh. Therefore, Sukhwinder Singh son of Garib Singh being a better candidate in comparison to the others is appointed as lambardar of Village Jalalabad , Tehsil Khadur Sahib in place of deceased lambardar Karnail Singh son of Meham Singh. Sanad lambardari may be issued after expiry of period of appeal. Copy of the orders may be sent to SDM Khadur Sahib for making compliance in the revenue record. The file may be consigned to the record room under the rules.” LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2011(O&M) -3- The appellant went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner vide order dated August 11, 2008. It was also said that the appellant is a more suitable candidate. Comparative merits were not discussed. Respondent No. 2 came in revision, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner, State of Punjab, on October 6, 2009, by observing as under: “I have carefully gone through both revision petitions, orders as well as record of the lower courts. I agree with the contention made by counsel for Sukhwinder Singh that the choice of Collector is to be honoured unless and until there is any patent illegality or perversity. The Punjab Land Revenue Act, confers a statutory duty upon District Collector is final, unless shown to be vitiated for lack of jurisdiction or is held the arbitrary capricious of unreasonable. In the present case, I find the orders of Collector justified and reasonable and there is no illegality or infirmity. The Commissioner has erred in his judgment weighing the merit of candidates while exercising his appellate jurisdiction. I, therefore, accept the revision, which should otherwise be appeal, filed by Sukhwinder Singh upholding the order dated 6-12-2007 to Collector, Tarn Taran and impugned order of Commissioner to this context is set aside. Revision filed by the Wariam Singh is dismissed being devoid of any merit.” The appellant and respondent No. 3 filed Civil Writ Petitions LETTERS PARENT APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2011(O&M) -4- No. 20424 of 2009 and 899 of 2010, which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated February 17, 2011. The learned Single Judge after discussing comparative merits of all the candidates has rightly held that none of the candidates suffer from any demerit or disability. In the segment of education, the appellant may be on the higher side. However, so far as land holdings is concerned, respondent No. 2 enjoys an edge. There is no illegality indicated in the order passed by the Financial Commissioner, which may necessitate any interference by this Court. As per established law, Collector is the best judge unless his/ her order is perverse or bad in law, no interference is called for. Dismissed. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge April 25, 2011. DKC