CWP No.10143 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.10143 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.03.2011 Joginder Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Ors. … Respondents ***** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Umesh Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. GS Attariwala, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. RS Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) 1. Joginder Singh son of Lachhman Singh has filed this petition praying for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari quashing orders dated 24th December, 2007 (Annexure P-4) and 22nd October, 2008 (Annexure P-6), passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Lambardar for Village Muradpur, Tehsil Mukerian, District Hoshiarpur by District Collector, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 24th August, 2005 (Annexure P-2). Respondent No.4 Vijay Kumar preferred an appeal against the order passed by District Collector. The appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide order dated 3rd July, 2006 (Annexure P-3). 3. Respondent Vijay Kumar filed a revision petition before the CWP No.10143 of 2009 -2- Financial Commissioner, which has been allowed vide order dated 24th of December, 2007 (Annexure P-4). Accordingly, respondent No.3- Vijay Kumar has been appointed as Lambardar for the village. 4. It seems that a vigilance raid was conducted in the office of Sh. Robin Gupta, who was Financial Commissioner and who passed impugned order dated 24th December, 2007 (Annexure P-4). The case at issue in this petition was also one of the cases to which reference has been made in the context of acceptance of illiegal gratification. In view of such later developments, the petitioner filed a review application in the office of Financial Commissioner. Vide order dated 22nd October, 2008 (Annexure P-6), the review application has also been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner. 5. I have taken note of the fact that even though the Financial Commissioner in subsequent proceedings in exceptional circumstances noted above, was considering review application, yet the comparative merit of the candidates has been taken into account and the matter has been adjudicated upon. 6. So far as the comparative merit of the private respondent and petitioner is concerned, the petitioner is 69 years of age; 8th class pass; ex- serviceman; served as Sarbrah Lambardar for 16 years; and, owns 7 acres 6 kanals and 6 marlas of land, whereas, respondent No.3 is 38 years of age; a graduate; and, owns 8 acres 6 kanals and 14 marlas of land. Considering the comparative merit, the petitioner had been appointed Lambardar for the village by the Collector. The appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner dismissed the appeal. At the point of time when the case was pending before the revisional authority i.e. the Financial Commissioner, it was brought out that the petitioner CWP No.10143 of 2009 -3- had been convicted in FIR No.153 dated 13th December, 1999, Police Station Mukerian under Sections 465, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code. The incident itself relates to an allegation against the petitioner in his capacity as Lambardar. It has been alleged that the petitioner in connivance with the other accused got the forged signatures of complainant on an agreement/mortgage deed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been acquitted by the Appellate court and, therefore, whatever was against the petitioner has now been wiped out. 8. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. So far as the comparative merit of the petitioner and respondent No.3, as noticed above, is concerned, it is made evident that the petitioner is about 30 years elder than respondent No.3. I also find that respondent No.3 is more educated being a graduate. The educational qualification of the petitioner is merely 8th class pass. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case and the said fact has been considered adverse to the case of the petitioner by the Financial Commissioner. 10. Reasonable criterion has been adopted by the Financial Commissioner in passing of the order and the same does not call for judicial review. 11. A Lambardar who is headman, is required to have a clean image and not of controversial nature. The involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case is one of the circumstances that has been considered against the petitioner while considering suitability. The respondent No.3 has been found to be more suitable as he was not involved in any such case. I am also of the considered CWP No.10143 of 2009 -4- opinion that the respondent being more educated and younger in age would more suitable to serve as Lambardar. 12. No ground for interference in extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 13. The petitioner is, accordingly, dismissed. MARCH 22, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Rajan JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?