L.P.A. Nos.576 and 577 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A. Nos.576 and 577 of 2011(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: MARCH 25, 2011 Mohinder Singh .....APPELLANT Versus Financial Commissioner,Revenue, Punjab and others ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL --- Present: Mr. Pawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the appellant. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos.576 and 577 of 2011 filed by Mohinder Singh-appellant. Both these Letters Patent Appeals have been directed against the order dated 8.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has disposed of three writ petitions filed by Mohinder Singh (appellant), Bir Singh (respondent no.4) and Upinder Singh (respondent No.5) in which all the petitioners challenged the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner. By the said order, the Financial Commissioner, after setting aside the order dated 10.11.2005 passed by the Collector appointing the appellant as Lambardar of the village; and the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the Commissioner upholding the order of the Collector, remanded the case to the District Collector to invite fresh applications for appointment on the post of L.P.A. Nos.576 and 577 of 2011(O&M) -2- Lambardar of village Bhanglan. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 11.1.2008 passed by the Financial Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the Financial Commissioner to re-consider the issue and pass appropriate orders, as per law. Only, the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge by filing the aforesaid two Letters Patent Appeals. The grouse of the appellant is that while passing the order of remand to the Financial Commissioner, the learned Single Judge has observed that “Mohinder Singh (appellant) is an unwilling candidate and therefore, it would be wholly unreasonable to presume that such a person can discharge duties of a Lambardar as given out in Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that order of the District Collector for appointment of Mohinder Singh, despite his written withdrawal of application for appointment of Lambardar is without consideration of relevant facts and parameters, and therefore, is illegal and perverse.” As far as the second candidate, i.e., Upinder Singh is concerned, it has been observed that he is not ordinarily residing in the village as he is serving as a teacher in Himachal Pradesh. Therefore, he also might not be able to discharge his duties as Lambardar of the village. Thus, he was not found suitable for appointment on the post of Lambardar. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in view of the aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge, the third candidate,namely, Bir Singh will be appointed as Lambardar by the Financial Commissioner as there are only three candidates in fray against the post in question. Learned counsel only argued that the appellant is L.P.A. Nos.576 and 577 of 2011(O&M) -3- having no grouse against remand of the matter to the Financial Commissioner to re-consider the issue, but his apprehension is that the observation made by the learned Single Judge will prejudice the mind of the Financial Commissioner while re-considering the suitability of the candidate for the post of Lambardar. Therefore, only to that extent it should be clarified that any observation made by the learned Single Judge will not prejudice the claim or eligibility of the appellant for appointment on the post of Lambardar. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order, we are of the opinion that when the learned Single Judge was not agreeing with the order of the Financial Commissioner, whereby the matter was remanded to the Collector to invite fresh applications for appointment on the post of Lambardar, and thus set aside the said order, and remanded the matter back to the Financial Commissioner to re-consider the issue and pass appropriate orders, as per law, then, in that situation, the Financial Commissioner is to consider the comparative merit and de-merit of all the candidates afresh in accordance with law, and then to take a decision, as per law. In our opinion, while passing the impugned order, any observation made by the learned Single Judge about the merit and de-merit of a particular candidate, should not be taken into consideration by the Financial Commissioner while considering the comparative merit and de-merit of all the candidates. After the remand, irrespective of the observation made in the impugned order, the Financial Commissioner is required to take its independent decision in accordance with law for appointing a suitable person on the post of Lambardar. L.P.A. Nos.576 and 577 of 2011(O&M) -4- Thus, in view of these facts, we dismiss both the appeals with clarification in the impugned order that the Financial Commissioner, while re-considering the issue with regard to the appointment on the post of Lambardar of the village and while considering the merit and de-merit of all the three candidates, shall not be influenced by any observation made by the learned Single Judge. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE March 25, 2011 ( M. JEYAPAUL ) vkg JUDGE