CWP No. 20346 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 20346 of 2005 DATE OF DECISION: April 27, 2011 Som Nath .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab and others ........ RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr. S.N. Chopra, Advocate, for respondent no. 4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties pray that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, main case be taken up for hearing today. Ordered accordingly. 2. This petition challenges order passed by Financial Commissioner Appeals-II, Punjab i.e. Annexure P-4 dated 18.10.2005 vide which the revision petition filed by Karamjit Singh-respondent no. 4 has been accepted. Orders passed by Collector i.e. Annexure P-1 dated 02.05.2003 and upheld by the appellate authority viz. Commissioner vide order Annexure P-2 dated 10.09.2003 have been set aside. 3. Vide order Annexure P-1 dated 02.05.2003, the petitioner was appointed as Lambardar for village Sikkandarpur, Tehsil Samrala, District CWP No. 20346 of 2005 2 Ludhiana after considering the comparative merit. Petitioner at that point in time was 39 years of age and B.A. Part-I pass and also Sarpanch of the village. No ineligibility or demerit could be traced in his claim such as pendency of criminal case etc. Karamjit Singh-respondent no. 4 at that point in time was 25 years of age and had studies upto 8th class. There was no demerit in the claim of the respondent also. The appeal filed by Karamjit Singh was dismissed vide order Annexure P-2 dated 10.09.2003 while saying that no perversity could be traced in the order passed by the Collector and, therefore, the order needs to be upheld. 4. The Financial Commissioner has set aside the order in revisional jurisdiction in view of the following consideration:- "After considering the facts on record, the arguments advanced by the parties. I feel that the respondent is already holding two important posts. When another eligible person is available in the form of Karamjit Singh, he should be appointed as Lambardar. Accordingly, the revision petition is accepted and I set aside the order of the Commissioner and the Collector (Deputy Commissioner) and appoint Karamjit Singh, the petitioner as the Lambardar." 5. The petitioner has been said to be holding the post of Sarpanch and Chairman Block Samiti. Learned counsel for the petitioner has clarified that the petitioner was never the Chairman of the Block Samiti. 6. Be that as it may, being a Sarpanch or Chairman of the Block Samiti cannot be translated so as to mean that it is a demerit in the claim of a person for being appointed as a Lambardar. The Financial Commissioner CWP No. 20346 of 2005 3 has treated the post of Lambardar as a largesse while saying that the petitioner was already holding two posts and, therefore, as another suitable person is available, that person should be appointed as Lambardar. 7. The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar by the Collector while taking into account his better merit. The order passed by the Collector is in tune with provisions of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, as applicable to Punjab. Being a Sarpanch indicates the popularity of the petitioner in the village and surely on account of the same, the petitioner would be in a better position to discharge his functions, as provided under Rule 20 of the Rules. 8. Clearly order Annexure P-4 passed by Financial Commissioner Appeals-II dated 18.10.2005 is illegal and is not based on sound reasons and, therefore, is quashed. Orders passed by the Collector and Commissioner Annexures P-1 and P-2 are hereby upheld. 9. Petition is accordingly allowed. 27.04.2011 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?