CWP No. 9100 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9100 of 2009 Date of decision: July 2, 2009 Manpreet Singh …. Petitioner Versus Ld. Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab and Others …. Respondents Present: Mr. Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. Heard counsel for the parties. The Civil Writ petition has been filed for assailing the order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab (respondent No.1), whereby the case with regard to the appointment of Lambardar (Head man) of village Chhota Samana, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Roopnagar has been remanded to the District Collector to hear all the five candidates afresh and decide the case keeping in view their inter se merit and availability of the candidates in the village. The office of Lambardar of village Chhota Samana, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Roopnagar became vacant on account of the death of Sh. Ajaib Singh, Lambardar. For filling up the post, five persons submitted their claims namely Balvir Singh son of Sardara Singh, Manjeet Singh (respondent No.4), Meva Singh son of Chanan Singh, Harbans Singh son of Pal Singh and Manpreet Singh CWP No. 9100 of 2009 2 (petitioner) for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. The Naib Tehsildar, Morinda recommended the candidature of Manpreet Singh (petitioner) for the post of Lambardar. His report was sent to the Tehsildar Chamkaur Sahib. The Tehsildar Chamkaur Sahib recommended the name of Manjit Singh (respondent No.4) for appointment as Lambardar. His report was sent to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chamkaur Sahib who after hearing the candidates agreed with the report of the Tehsildar Chamkaur Sahib and recommended the name of Manjit Singh (respondent No.4) for the post of Lambardar. The case was then sent to the District Collector, Roopnagar. The learned District Collector, Roopnagar vide order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P1) considered the case of all the five candidates and found Manjit Singh (respondent No.4) to be the most suitable person. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Collector, Roopnagar preferred an appeal (Annexure P2) before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala. The Commissioner vide order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P3) found the petitioner to be suitable for appointment as Lambardar. Both the learned counsel have stated that the other candidates namely Balvir Singh son of Sardara Singh, Meva Singh son of Chanan Singh and Harbans Singh son of Pal Singh did not file any appeal against the order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Collector, Roopnagar. Therefore, the other three candidates were satisfied with the order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P1) as they did not file any appeal against the said order. In any case, against the order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P3) passed by the Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala, Manjit Singh (respondent No.4) filed a revision petition (Annexure P4) before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. The learned Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab vide impugned order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P5) has remanded the case to the District Collector to hear all the five candidates afresh and decide the case keeping in view their inter se merit and availability of the candidates in the village. CWP No. 9100 of 2009 3 Sh. Jatinder Singla, Advocate learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Financial Commissioner has erred in ordering the hearing of all the five candidates afresh and decide the case keeping in view their inter se merit. It is submitted that when the other three candidates namely Balvir Singh, Meva Singh and Harbans Singh were not aggrieved against the order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Collector, there was no occasion for the learned Financial Commissioner to order the rehearing of their cases afresh. Learned counsel cites Gurlal Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab and others, CWP No.4455 of 2008 decided on 7.8.2008. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the Collector is the competent authority for considering the person who is fit for appointment as Lambardar. Besides, appointment of Lambardar is an administrative act and his selection is not normally to be undone unless there is some gross irregularity, perversity and patent error of law. Otherwise, it is submitted that there is no dispute to the proposition that the other three candidates are not liable to be considered for the office of Lambardar as they admittedly have no grievance against the order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Collector, Roopnagar. Besides, they are not aggrieved against the order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P3) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the District Collector, Roopnagar in his order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P1) considered the case of all the five candidates on merit and after due consideration found Manjit Singh (respondent No.4) to be the most suitable candidate for appointment as Lambardar. Against the said order, no appeal is shown to have been filed by Balvir Singh, Meva Singh and Harbans Singh. Therefore, admittedly they are in no manner aggrieved against the same. The petitioner was aggrieved against the appointment of Manjit Singh (respondent No.4) as Lambardar and he preferred an appeal (Annexure P2) before the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. CWP No. 9100 of 2009 4 The said appeal of the petitioner was allowed vide order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P3) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. Against the said order, revision petition (Annexure P4) was filed by Manjit Singh (respondent No.4) before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. The other three candidates namely Balvir Singh, Meva Singh and Harbans Singh did not file any appeal against the order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P3) of the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. They in fact were not even parties in the said case. In any case, they did not assail the order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P1) passed the District Collector, Roopnagar. Vide impugned order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab, the matter has been remanded to the District Collector to hear all the five candidates afresh. A Division Bench of this Court in Gurlal Singh’s case (supra) held that the Financial Commissioner while exercising his revisional powers can set aside the order if he finds glaring illegality or irregularity in the said order or he could have appointed one of the candidates on the post after coming to the conclusion that he was more suitable than the petitioner. However, in the opinion of this Court, the Financial Commissioner, it was observed, had exceeded his jurisdiction while remanding the matter with a direction for inviting fresh applications for wider choice. It was observed that the Financial Commissioner could have ordered for inviting fresh applications if there could have been any illegality or irregularity in inviting the applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar. The powers of Financial Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction of revision under Section 16 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 are though wide, but it is settled law that the revisional powers are to be exercised if the order of the subordinate Court is without jurisdiction or the Court has not exercised jurisdiction vested in it or has acted illegally or with material irregularity. It was held that it was not the case of any of the party before the Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner that proper proclamation for inviting the applications was not made nor was there any finding in this regard. Nor CWP No. 9100 of 2009 5 was it found that none of the candidate was eligible or suitable for appointment on the post. Therefore, the Financial Commissioner was not justified in remanding the case for inviting fresh applications for better choice and he had exceeded his jurisdiction while remanding the matter on an issue which was not raised by any of the party before him. In the present case as well, the other three candidates namely Balvir Singh, Meva Singh and Harbans Singh have accepted the order dated 28.11.2007 (Annexure P1) passed by the District Collector, Roopnagar. They did not file any appeal or revision against the said order or against the order dated 21.8.2008 (Annexure P3) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. Therefore, when the case has been considered on merit and decided by the District Collector, there was no occasion for the learned Financial Commissioner for ordering the hearing of their cases afresh and to decide the matter. Therefore, keeping in view the observations of the Division Bench of this Court in Gurlal Singh’s case (Supra), the learned Financial Commissioner exceeded in the exercise of her jurisdiction for directing hearing the other three candidates afresh for deciding as to who is the most suitable candidate. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by modifying the order dated 10.2.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab to the extent that the District Collector shall hear the petitioner and Manjit Singh (respondent No.4) afresh and decide the case keeping in view their inter se merit and availability in the village. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 2, 2009 amit