C.W.P. No.11685 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11685 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 8, 2011 Jagdish Lal ...... Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ...... Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Alok Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner-Jagdish Lal has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing impugned orders dated 23.12.2010, passed by Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab and order dated 2.8.2010, passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 16.2.2010, passed by District Collector, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, by virtue of which the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar of village Paniali Kalan, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr (Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar) was declined and Sohan Lal son of Mohinder Ram was appointed as Lambardar of the said village. C.W.P. No.11685 of 2011 2 Brief facts for the disposal of present petition are that on account of the death of Sangat Singh, SC Lambardar of village Paniali Kalan, Tehsil Balachaur, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar the post of Lambardar fell vacant. The applications were invited and seven candidates applied for the post of Lambardar. Out of seven candidates, two candidates made statement before the Tehsildar, Balachaur that they do not want to contest for the post of Lambardar and stated that respondent No.4- Sohan Lal may be appointed as Lambardar. Naib Tehsildar, Balachaur recommended the name of the petitioner on 27.8.2008 and Sub-Divisional Magistrate also recommended the name of the petitioner on 11.9.2009, but the District Collector sent the matter back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balachaur and on reconsideration the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Balachaur recommended the name of respondent No.4-Sohan Lal on 18.11.2009. The petitioner along with his counsel appeared before the District Collector and submitted that he is permanent resident of village, 42 years old, 8th Pass, having Ration Card, Voter Card, Pucca House in the village besides having land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas and his wife also remained Sarpanch of the village. He also asserted that he had also donated ` 2100/- to Baba Deep Singh Sports Club whereas respondent No.4 belongs to Economically Weaker Section and holder of BPL Card and is taking wheat and dal on concession rate under the Punjab Government Scheme and as he is doing the work of labourer, therefore, the name of respondent No.4 should not be considered for the post of Lambardar. After hearing both the parties the District Collector, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar appointed respondent No.4-Sohan Lal as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 16.2.2010 on the ground that Sub Divisional Magistrate has recommended his name and Panchayat has also passed resolution in favour of respondent No.4. The C.W.P. No.11685 of 2011 3 petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which was dismissed vide order dated 2.8.2010. Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed revision before the Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2010. Feeling aggrieved against the said impugned orders the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court through the present writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned orders passed by the District Collector, Commissioner as well as the Financial Commissioner, Punjab are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the provisions of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. He has further argued that the Collector as well as the Commissioner have erred in law while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the claim of the petitioner is more meritorious, but despite that without any cogent reason his name has wrongly been rejected by the said authorities and have wrongly appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar of the village against the principle of natural justice and as such the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Undisputedly, the comparative chart between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is as under :- Seria l No. Jagdish Lal -petitioner Sohan Lal -respondent N 4 1. Age 42 years 39 years 2. Caste S.C. S.C. 3. Qualification 8th 10th 4. Property Own house Own house and running a shop C.W.P. No.11685 of 2011 4 5. Name recommended By Tehsildar, Balachaur Resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat and name recommended by Sub-Divisional Officer, Balachaur On the basis of character verification and other material available on the record as well as the resolution of the Gram Panchayat in favour of respondent No.4-Sohan Lal, the Sub Divisional Officer recommended the name of the respondent No.4-Sohan Lal as fit candidate for the appointment as Lambardar. Learned Collector after perusing comparative chart, resolution of Gram Panchayat, recommendation of Sub Divisional Officer and after hearing the parties has appointed respondent No.4 Lambardar. The petitioner challenged his appointment before the competent authority by way of appeal and thereafter by way of revision before the Financial Commissioner, but he failed. In Mahavir Singh vs. Khiyali Ram and others, (2009)3 SCC 439, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 21 and 22 has observed as under :- “21. It is, therefore, not a case where the finding of the Collector can be said to be perverse. It has also not been established that the said statutory authority while taking a decision failed to take into consideration the relevant factors or based its decision on extraneous considerations or on irrelevant factors not germane therefore. 22. In Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan this Court held: “12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in C.W.P. No.11685 of 2011 5 one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection committed which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection, etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so-called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court sent wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.” Applying the ratio it can safely be said that ordinarily the opinion of the Collector is to be treated as final and should not be disturbed without any plausible reason. Having perused the record, I find that the C.W.P. No.11685 of 2011 6 order of the Collector is correct appointing Sohan Lal as Lambardar, of the village and there is nothing on record to disturb the opinion of the Collector appointing Sohan Lal as Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any compelling ground to say order of the Collector, Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority is perverse and were passed without looking into the relevant factors or are out come of extraneous consideration. There is no merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. (Alok Singh) Judge July 8, 2011 Anand