HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.18875 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.07.2011 **** Harbhajan Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. SS Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2 Ms. Charanjit Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No.2 as the Lamberdar of the village Alampur. The vacancy was caused due to death of father of the petitioner (Joginder Singh) who was the earlier Lamberdar. The Collector, Hoshiarpur, preferred respondent No.2 for appointment on the plea that he is 29 years old with M.Sc. (Math) qualification and having sound financial background. The petitioner, on the other hand, is 47 years’ old, 8th class pass though having more agricultural land. The petitioner’s objection that respondent No.2 Navdeep Pal Singh was working in some CWP No.18875 of 2010.doc - 2 – School, was not proved as the said respondent has taken a categoric plea that he is not employed in any school. The choice made by the Collector was approved by the Commissioner and has been further upheld by the Financial Commissioner also. (2). In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is a little scope of interference by a writ court until and unless it is proved that the findings returned by the authorities below are perverse and/or contrary to the material on record. No such case is made out by the petitioner. (3). Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner urges that respondent No.2 has now been elected as Sarpanch also which is a disqualification. In my considered view, the subsequent event, if has any bearing on the functioning of respondent No.2 as a Lamberdar can be independently examined by the competent authority and the petitioner, if so advised, may approach the Authorities in this regard who shall proceed in accordance with law. (4). With these observations and liberty, the writ petition stands dismissed. (5). Dasti . 25.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge 2