L.P.A. No.408 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. No.408 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 07, 2011 Bakshi Ram .....APPELLANT Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the order dated 10.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No.9099 of 2009) filed by appellant Bakshi Ram challenging the order dated 24.3.2009 passed by the Financial Commissioner, has been dismissed; as well as order dated 17.2.2011, whereby the review application filed by the appellant against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, has been dismissed. In the present case, the dispute is about the appointment of Lambardar of village Khadri. The appellant was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector vide order dated 12.11.2007. The order of the Collector was upheld by the Commissioner, whereas on a revision filed respondent No.5- L.P.A. No.408 of 2011 -2- Shiv Kumar, Financial Commissioner set aside the orders of the Collector as well as the Commissioner while coming to the conclusion that the order of the Collector appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village, was perverse and the same is not sustainable. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant while coming to the following conclusion:- “De hors of other things, the comparative merit of the petitioner and the private respondent is required to be seen so as to see whether the Financial Commissioner has passed orders for good reason and on the basis of relevant material. While the petitioner is 46 years of age and 7th class pass, the private respondent Shiv Kumar is 32 years of age and matric pass. The said respondent is also ITI Diploma holder. Other than that, Annexure R5/3 is a certificate issued in favour of the respondent in recognition of meritorious service in the field of bravery awarded on 26.1.2007 at Yamuna Nagar. Considering the higher qualification, younger age and recognition of meritorious service, the respondent has been appointed by the Financial Commissioner as Lambardar. Land holding only would not be the relevant criteria for appointment of a Lambardar. 3. Considering the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Financial Commissioner.” After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the orders of the Collector, Financial Commissioner as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. It is well settled that normally the choice of the Collector, who is the appointing authority in the matter of appointment of Lambardar in the L.P.A. No.408 of 2011 -3- village, should not be interfered by the Commissioner or Financial Commissioner or this Court, but in case where the order of the Collector is illegal or perverse and the Collector has arbitrarily appointed a person as Lambardar of the village after ignoring a meritorious person, then the Financial Commissioner, being the highest revenue authority, can upset the said order. In the present case, respondent-Shiv Kumar was younger in age and was 10th class pass as well as ITI diploma holder. Other than that, Annexure R5/3 is a certificate issued in favour of the respondent in recognition of meritorious service in the field of bravery awarded on 26.1.2007 at Yamuna Nagar. On the other hand, the appellant was older in age and was only 7th class pass, but the Collector while appointing the appellant as Lambardar and by ignoring respondent No.5, being a better candidate, had not given any reasons except that in his opinion the appellant was more meritorious and suitable candidate which he could not have been. Noticing this factor, learned Financial Commissioner has set aside the order of the Collector and appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village. In these facts and circumstances, in our view, learned Single Judge has rightly declined to interfere in the said order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 07, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE