IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.2351 of 2011 Date of decision : 23.12.2011 Ranjit Singh … Appellant Versus Financial Commissioner (Co-operation) Punjab, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present : Ms.Puneeta Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Paramjeet Singh, J. The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 29.7.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the Civil Writ Petition filed by Smt.Amarjit Kaur-respodnent No.4 herein has been allowed and order dated 27.11.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by Financial Commissioner and order dated 28.8.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner, has been set aside and order dated 6.12.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector appointing Smt.Amarjit Kaur as Lambardar of the village, has been upheld. Brief facts of the case are that after the death of Jasbir Singh, Lambardar of village Rajpur, Tehsil Bholath, District Kapurthala, a muandi (proclamation) was made to fill up the vacant post of Lambardar and five persons namely Amarjit Kaur, Ranjit Singh, Jaswant Singh, Balwinder Kaur and Lakhbir Singh submitted their applications for appointment as Lambardar. LPA No.2351 of 2011 Tehsildar, Bholath after verification of the antecedents from the local police, prepared a Naksha Lambardari and the candidature of Gurmit Singh son of Jasbir Singh was not considered as he had filed application after the last date of receipt of applications for the post of Lambardar. Tehsildar recommended the name of Ranjit Singh son of Darshan Singh-appellant and the Sub Divisional Magistrate also concurred with the recommendation of Tehsildar Bholath. Ultimately, the matter was considered by the Collector who after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates, appointed Smt.Amarjit Kaur-respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village Rajpur. Aggrieved against the said order, Ranjit Singh preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and the same was accepted and Ranjit Singh was appointed as Lambardar of the village. Against the order, Smt.Amarjit Kaur preferred an appeal before Financial Commissioner was dismissed. Thereafter, Smt.Amarjit Kaur filed a Civil Writ Petition before this Court which has been allowed and the order of Financial Commissioner as well as of Commissioner have been set aside by the learned Single Judge upholding the order of Collector. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner, Commissioner and the Collector. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Smt.Amarjit Kaur is not residing in village Rajpur rather she is running a school at Talwara, therefore, her availability in village to perform the duty as Lambardar is less whereas the appellant is readily available in the village. Learned Single Judge has erroneously rejected the contention of the appellant and set aside the orders of the Financial Commissioner as well as the Commissioner. The order of 2 LPA No.2351 of 2011 learned Single Judge suffers from jurisdictional error and is perverse. The learned Single Judge cannot re-appreciate the merit in writ jurisdiction. We are not in agreement with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. It is an admitted fact on record that she is running a school at Talwara, but it does not mean that she is not available in the village. The Collector had recorded a positive finding that Ranjit Singh has a vast business and he cannot take out time for the work of the villagers. This finding has not been looked into by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner. Respondent No.4 has given a cogent explanation that she is running a school at Talwara and she has engaged several teachers and they are taking the classes. She has sufficient time to perform the duty of Lambardar. Under the provisions of the Act, there is no specific bar that a person in employment cannot be appointed as Lambardar. Even after appointment as Lambardar, a Sarbeah Lambardar can be appointed to perform the duty of Lambardar in place of the appointed Lambardar. The availability of the Lambardar in the village is one of the requirement for doing work of the villagers such as execution of sale deeds, identification before the various authorities etc. The running school by her, will not anyway effect the works of Lambardar. It is a settled principle of law that choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The Commissioner has not recorded a finding that order of the Collector is perverse. The learned Single Judge rightly set aside the orders passed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner upholding the choice of Collector. Thus, in our opinion, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for interference in appeal. 3 LPA No.2351 of 2011 No merit. Dismissed. [ PARAMJEET SINGH ] JUDGE [ SATISH KUMAR MITTAL] JUDGE 23.12.2011 sd 4