IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12953 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 01, 2011 Sukhdev Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner, Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This civil writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 19.2.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by Divisional Commissioner, Patiala; and order dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by Financial Commissioner, Punjab. CWP No.12953 of 2009 [2] 2. The facts in brief are that the post of Lambardar for village Dhatogal, Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur, fell vacant on the death of earlier Lambardar, Dalip Singh. The petitioner Sukhdev Singh and respondent No.4 Gurmeet Singh are the two contestants. Their comparative merit is as under:- Sukhdev Singh petitioner is 50 years of age; has passed 8th class; and owns 35 bighas 3 biswas of land, whereas respondent No.4, Gurmeet Singh is 25 years of age; 10+2 pass; and owns 37 bighas 7 biswas of land. 3. District Collector, Sangrur, vide Order dated 4.10.2007 (Annexure P-4) appointed the petitioner as Lambardar while saying that the petitioner possesses wider experience of life being older in age and he knows residents of the village personally. Respondent No.4 carried an appeal to the Commissioner. Divisional Commissioner, Patiala, vide Order dated 19.2.2008 (Annexure P-6) has remanded the case back to the Collector on the ground that on all relevant parameters, appellant (respondent No.4 herein) has better qualification. The order also refers to the fact that Tehsildar found Gurmeet Singh (respondent No.4) to be more suitable person and had recommended the candidature of the said person to be appointed as Lambardar. CWP No.12953 of 2009 [3] 4. Petitioner filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner. Revision petition has been dismissed vide the other impugned order i.e. Annexure P-7 dated 15.7.2009. Operative part of order Annexure P-7 reads as under:- “4. I have considered the arguments of counsels of both the parties and gone through the record of the case. Clearly respondent has more land, is better qualified and is also younger than the petitioner and on that account alone he should have been appointed as Lambardar of the village. Even otherwise, the petitioner being General Secretary of a political party cannot be expected to do justice to his job and he impartial in performance of his duties. I do not find any reason not to agree with the decision of the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala in appointing respondent as Lambardar. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.” 5. I am of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner do not suffer from any legal infirmity, in so much as better merit of the respondent appears to have been ignored by the Collector. Another relevant circumstance that has been taken into account by the Financial Commissioner is that petitioner was General Secretary of a political party and therefore, cannot be expected to be impartial in performance of his duties. The qualification and land holdings are not in dispute. 6. No ground for interference in extraordinary civil writ jurisdiction is made out. 7. The petition is dismissed. CWP No.12953 of 2009 [4] (AJAI LAMBA) March 01, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?