CWP No. 10560 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 10560 of 2009 Date of decision: July 20, 2009 Bishan Dass …. Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner etc. …. Respondents Present: Mr. Manohar Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure P7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals II) Punjab, Chandigarh affirming the appointment of Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) as Lambardar has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the orders dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure P7), 5.12.2005 (Annexure P5) and 25.11.2002 (Annexure P1) passed by respondents No.1 to 3 respectively. On the death of Sh. Shankar Dass, Lambardar of village Talwara, Tehsil Mukerian, Distt. Hoshiarpur, the said post became vacant from amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes. Proceedings were initiated for filling up the post of Lambardar. In all, five applications were received. The Assistant Collector, Grade I, Talwara recommended the name of Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) for the post of Lambardar of the village. The Naib Tehsildar, Talwara also agreed to the said report and forwarded the same to the SDM Mukerian. The matter was considered by the CWP No. 10560 of 2009 2 District Collector, Hoshiarpur (respondent No.3) and the case of three candidates who were left namely Bishan Dass (petitioner), Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) and one Raj Kumar were considered. It was observed that Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) and Bishan Dass (petitioner) were working. The applicant Raj Kumar was a shopkeeper. Accordingly, it was observed that Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) was a graduate and son of the deceased Lambardar. Therefore, he was a better candidate and his name was recommended by Naib Tehsildar, Talwara, Tehsildar Mukerian and Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Mukerian. Accordingly, Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) was appointed as Lambardar. The Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar (respondent No.2) vide order dated 28.5.2003 (Annexure P3) set aside the order of the Collector as the process to fill up the vacancy of Lambardar amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes had been initiated without the explicit order of the District Collector, Hoshiarpur. Against the order dated 28.5.2003 (Annexure P3) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, Bishan Dass (petitioner) and Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) filed revision petitions before the learned Financial Commissioner (Taxation) Punjab, Chandigarh who vide order dated 3.8.2004 (Annexure P4) set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and remanded the case back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide order dated 5.12.2005 (Annexure P5) found Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) to be more suitable. He was younger in age, he was more educated; inasmuch as he was a graduate, whereas Bishan Dass (petitioner) was only matriculate. Besides, Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) owned land in the village and he was son of the deceased Lambardar. There was no complaint against him. It was observed that though Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) remains busy but being a Government employee, it was held to be no disqualification. Moreover, his name had been recommended by all the four revenue authorities. The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated CWP No. 10560 of 2009 3 5.12.2005 (Annexure P5) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar filed a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals II), Punjab, Chandigarh, who vide order dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure P7) has upheld the appointment of Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) as Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in fact Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) is a Government employee and he would not be available in the village to perform the function of Lambdar. It is submitted that the petitioner though was also employed in Government, however, he has retired in the Year 2007. Therefore, he can devote more time for performing duties as a Lambardar. In the circumstances, it is submitted that the appointment of Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) as a Lambardar is liable to be set aside. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the choice of Lambardar is primarily the prerogative and administrative act of the District Collector. His selection is normally not to be undone unless and until it is shown that the same suffers from gross irregularity, perversity or there is some patent error in his appointment. This Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities in the choice of Lambardar. This Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence and material on record and thereby re- determine as to who would be the better choice for the post of Lambardar. Review of the quasi-judicial orders to that extent is limited. Even otherwise, it is admitted case that mere employment in the State Government or any of its instrumentalities is not per se a disqualification for appointment of village Lambardar. A Division Bench of this Court in Amarjeet Singh v. Financial Commissioner, Appeal-II, 2001 (1) RCR (Civil), 449 held that mere factum of an employment with the State Government is not a disqualification for appointment as Lambardar. In the circumstances, the revenue authorities having held Chaman Lal (respondent No.4) to CWP No. 10560 of 2009 4 be more suitable and his mere service as Government employee not to be a disqualification, the choice of revenue authorities is not liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 20, 2009 amit