IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5047 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: May 23, 2011 Talwinder Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Co-operation), Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the applicant- petitioner. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing order dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar; and order 9.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab. Vide the impugned orders (Annexure P-3 and P-6), order dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Collector, Kapurthala, appointing petitioner as Lambardar, has been set CWP No.5047 of 2010 [2] aside and respondent No.4, Paramjit Singh son of Makhan Singh has been appointed as Lambardar for village Chachoki, Tehsil Phagwara, District Kapurthala. 2. Admittedly, respondent No.4 is younger in age than petitioner by 9 years and more educated being 10+2 vis-a-vis the qualification of the petitioner i.e. Matric. Both the candidates are members of Panchayat. Considering the better merit of the private respondent, Commissioner vide order dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P-3), accepted the appeal of the private respondent while setting aside order dated 17.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) passed by Collector, Kapurthala. The Financial Commissioner, vide order dated 9.10.2009 (Annexure P-6) upheld order dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by Commissioner. 3. The facts as stated, are not in dispute. All that has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No.4 was tried in a criminal case. Admittedly, however, respondent No.4 was acquitted vide judgment dated 1.10.2003 (Annexure P-7) passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Phagwara. 4. Considering the fact that much before Lambardari became open, the private respondent had already been acquitted, and the revenue officers have appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar, after considering his better merit, no ground to judicially review the impugned orders, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 5. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 23, 2011 JUDGE avin CWP No.5047 of 2010 [3] 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?