IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.979 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 30.05.2011 Nasib Singh …..Appellant versus Financial Commissioner and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr.Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the appellant Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) C.M. No.2753 of 2011 In view of reasons mentioned in this application, which is accompanied by an affidavit, it is allowed and 77 days delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. LPA No.979 of 2011 This appeal has been filed against judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 2.2.2011, dismissing CWP No.15014 of 2009, filed by the appellant. In the above writ petition, the appellant had laid challenge to the appointment of respondent No.3 as Lambardar of village Matheri Jattan, district Ambala. It is apparent from the record that on accrual of a vacancy, the applications were invited. The petitioner and respondent No.3 were the contesting candidates. The District Collector after getting report form the lower revenue staff and taking note of superior merits of respondent No.3, appointed him as a Lambardar of the village vide order dated 12.4.2007. It LPA No.979 of 2011(O&M) was specifically noted by the Collector that respondent No.3 is more educated than the appellant and he had also motivated the villagers to participate in the family planning. He is younger in age. The lower revenue staff also recommended his name. The appellant went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner merely on a ground that respondent No.3 was in employment. Matter went to the Financial Commissioner, who vide order dated 31.7.2009 accepted a revision petition filed by respondent No.3, set aside order passed by the Commissioner and restored an order passed by the Collector appointing respondent No.3 as a Lambardar. In that order, it was observed as under:- “The Collector has duly considered the comparative merits of both the candidates regarding their age, educational qualifications and participation in government schemes and have appointed younger and better educated person as Lambardar. Further, the fact that the petitioner is a part time Guest Teacher in an Engineering College at Barwala does not dis- qualify him for the post of Lambardar because it is not a permanent job and he does reside at Barwala. He is also cultivating the land taken on lease which is ample proof that he normally resides in the village.” It was noted by the Financial Commissioner that respondent No.3 was only in part time employment and his availability in the village is not in doubt. Matter came to this Court and vide the impugned order, CWP No.15014 of 2009 filed by the appellant was dismissed. 2 LPA No.979 of 2011(O&M) We feel that the order passed is perfectly justified. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show to us that, to be in part time employment, is a disqualification for appointment to the post of Lambardar, especially when it is not proved that the candidate will not be available in the village to perform the duties. Furthermore, it has come on record that merits of respondent No.3 are superior as compared to the appellant. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 30.05.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) gk Judge 3