IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 2291 of 2011 ( O&M ) DATE OF DECISION : 15.12.2011 Mahavir Singh .... APPELLANT Versus The Financial Commissioner (Appeal-II), Punjab, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. G.C. Rattan, Advocate, for the appellant. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by appellant Mahavir Singh against the order dated 2.9.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 16258 of 2011) filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 20.11.2007; 5.2.2009 and 8.12.2010 (Annexures P-3, P-2 and P-1), passed by the Collector, Hoshiarpur; Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar; and the Financial Commissioner (Appeal II), Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively, appointing respondent No.4 Darshan Singh as Lambardar of village Masitpal Kot, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, has been dismissed. LPA No. 2291 of 2011 -2- The brief facts of the case are that on the death of Gurbax Singh, previous Lambardar of the aforesaid village, a vacancy of Lambardar arose. To fill up the vacancy, proclamation was made in the village and applications were invited. In response thereto, 19 candidates, including the appellant and respondent No.4, applied for the post of Lambardar. After considering the claims and counter-claims of all the candidates, Naib Tehsildar, Tanda, recommended the name of the appellant for the post of Lambardar. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dasuya, also recommended his name for the said post. However, the District Collector, vide his order dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure P-3) after considering the merits and de-merits of all the candidates, including the appellant, appointed respondent No.4 Darshan Singh as Lambdardar of the village. Against the said order of the Collector, the appellant as well as one Parminder Singh filed two separate appeals, which were dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 5.2.2009 (Annexure P-2). The revision petitions, filed by both the aforesaid candidates, were also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II) vide order dated 8.12.2010 (Annexure P-1). The learned Single Judge has upheld the orders of the revenue authorities, appointing respondent No.4 Darshan Singh as Lambardar of the village. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is grand-son of the previous Lambardar and belongs to Patti Rajputan, LPA No. 2291 of 2011 -3- therefore, he should have been given preference for appointment of Lambardar of the village, which according to the counsel is meant for Patti Rajputan. It has also been argued by the learned counsel that the appellant, being 36 years old, having Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and possessing N.C.C `A' Grade certificate, is more suitable candidate than respondent No.4 Darshan Singh, who is older in age and does not belong to Patti Rajputan. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the revenue authorities as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is well settled that choice of the Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar cannot be substituted by the Commissioner merely observing that other candidate was better candidate. [See : Sarwan Kumar Versus The Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab, 2002 (2) RCR (Civil) 520]. The choice of the Collector in this regard should not be interfered with by the Commissioner or the Financial Commissioner, 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 set aside the said order. In the present case, the Collector, while taking into consideration the comparative merits of all the candidates, has appointed respondent No.4 Darshan Singh as Lambardar of the village. A perusal of the order of the Collector shows that the Collector, while LPA No. 2291 of 2011 -4- taking into consideration the facts that respondent No.4, though was 60 years old, but being a retired Panchayat Officer, will remain available to the villagers; used to assist the officials visiting the village and has the knowledge of the work of Lambardar, appointed him as Lambardar of the village. So far as the appellant is concerned, though he is younger in age and is Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineering, but keeping in view the fact that he cannot be available for the villagers, as he has marriage palace at Tanda, he was ignored. It is not the case of the appellant that respondent No.4 was not eligible for appointment for the post of Lambardar. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the post of Lambardar in question was kept reserved for the candidate belonging to Patti Rajputan. This contention, raised by the appellant for the first time in the writ petition, is not supported by any document, annexed with the petition. Annexure P-4 is the order passed by the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Tanda, which clearly shows that advertisement was made inviting applications from the persons belonging to General category, to fill up the post of Lambardar, in place of deceased Gurbax Singh. In none of the documents, annexed with the petition, it has been mentioned that the post of Lambardar in question was reserved for a particular Patti. In this view of the matter, contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant, who owns land in Patti Rajputan and belongs to the said Patti, is the only eligible candidate, cannot be accepted. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere in LPA No. 2291 of 2011 -5- the impugned order. Dismissed. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 15, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE