Civil Writ Petition No.4727 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4727 of 2010(O&M) DATE OF DECISION: September 12, 2011 Darshan Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS The Financial Commissioner Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. In the year 2005, the process for appointment to a Scheduled Caste Lamberdar in Village Chachoki, Tehsil Phagwara, Distt. Kapurthala, was initiated. Tehsildar Phagwara recommended the name of the petitioner on 25.10.2005. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Phagwara, also agreed with this recommendation. The District Collector, Kapurthala, appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village on 31.1.2006. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar on 1.3.2006. In the meantime, the District Collector, issued Lambardari Sanad in favour of the petitioner on 10.4.2006. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, accepted the appeal filed by respondent No.4 and appointed him as Lambardar of the village. Civil Writ Petition No.4727 of 2010(O&M) -2- Another appeal filed by Rachhpal Singh, however, was dismissed. The petitioner impugned this order before the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner admitted the appeal and granted status quo order on 30.11.2007. Ultimately, the Financial Commissioner had set aside the order passed by the Commissioner on 22.1.2010 and had also remanded the case to the District Collector. As per the petitioner, this has been done on flimsy grounds. Submission is that once the Financial Commissioner has found that the Commissioner has wrongly interfered with the order passed by the Collector, there was no justification for the Financial Commissioner to remand the case back for afresh adjudication. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this writ petition to challenge the order passed by the Financial Commissioner to this limited extent. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order passed by the Collector (Annexure P-1). The Collector apparently had considered the relative merits of all the candidates under consideration and found the petitioner to be suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar. The petitioner was ex-Sarpanch and Panch of the village. The respectables of the village had passed resolution in his favour. His name had also been recommended by all the lower revenue authorities. The Commissioner interfered with this order on the ground that Charanjit Singh-respondent No.4 was more meritorious than the other candidates. The Commissioner noticed that respondent No.4 was younger in age and had landed property. Rachhpal Singh had remained absent before the Collector and was, accordingly, proceeded against ex-parte. The Commissioner has interfered in the choice exercised Civil Writ Petition No.4727 of 2010(O&M) -3- by the Collector on the ground, which may really not be the valid one for him to interfere. It has consistently been held that the choice exercised by the Collector normally is not to be interfered with except where the order discloses lack of jurisdiction or an error of fact, so as to render his order arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. The Commissioner, in my view, was not justified in interfering with the choice exercised by the Collector on the ground that other candidates are more meritorious. The Commissioner could have interfered in the choice exercised by the Collector on limited ground of jurisdiction or perversity. The Financial Commissioner rightly assessed the situation and took a view that the Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the order passed by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner, therefore, was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner, but apparently has given no reason for which he had remanded the case back to the District Collector to decide it afresh. Once the matter has been considered by the Collector, there apparently is no justification or valid reason for the Collector to reconsider the issue. Accordingly, that part of the order passed by the Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained. Once the Financial Commissioner had set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, he could have remanded the case only if some thing else was to be considered and some thing had escaped attention which ought to have been considered. Nothing is recorded in the order which would show as to what had not been considered by the Collector, which was relevant for consideration. The part of the order remanding the case to the Collector, thus, cannot be sustained. The Civil Writ Petition No.4727 of 2010(O&M) -4- case would go back to the Financial Commissioner to reconsider this aspect of remand of the case to the Collector. The Financial Commissioner may pass an appropriate order afresh in accordance with law and the observation made above. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. September 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE