IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9004 of 2008 Date of decision: 15.10.2009 Dharam Singh ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ….. Respondents Present :- Mr.J.S. Thind, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.S. Gill, Deputy A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. J.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.5. *** S.S SARON, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Dharam Singh and learned counsel for respondent No.5. The petitioner and respondent No.5 are brothers and are contestants for the post of Lambardar of Village Chak Madhai @ Sonewala, Tehsil and District Muktsar. Earlier, their father Albel Singh was Lambardar of the Village and after his death on 11.05.1973 the said post fell vacant. Proceedings for appointment of new Lambardar against the vacant post were initiated in pursuance of letter dated 26.06.2002 from the office of the District Collector, Muktsar. In terms of the said letter, CWP No.9004 of 2008 [2] proclamation was carried out in the village and Dharam Singh Son of Albel Singh, Gurmeet Singh son of Bhagwan Singh, Jassa Singh son of Tarlok Singh submitted their applications for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. Later, Jassa Singh and Gurmeet Singh withdrew their applications. As such Dharam Singh-petitioner was the only candidate left in the fray. Thereafter, Mastan Singh-respondent No.5 appeared before the District Collector on 26.12.2002. He stated that he had been working as Lambardar in the village for the last 30 years and had been collecting revenue, Chowkidari etc. and getting the same deposited in the Government treasury. According to him the case with regard to the process of appointment of Lambardar was not made known in the village. The residents of the village got their statements recorded in favour of Mastan Singh-respondent No.5 to the effect that he be appointed as Lambardar. Thereafter, Mushtri Munadi was again effected in the village and fresh applications were invited. Applications were received only from Dharam Singh-petitioner and Mastan Singh-respondent No.5. After verification of their antecedents, the District Collector, Muktsar vide order dated 25.11.2003 (Annexure P-3) appointed Mastan Singh-respondent No.5 as Lambardar. The petitioner aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. In terms of order dated 29.7.2004 (Annexure P-4), the Commissioner remanded the case to the District Collector, Muktsar with the direction that the inter se merit of both the candidates be considered properly and both the candidates be heard. In pursuance of the order of remand, the District Collector Muktsar in terms of order dated 7.10.2004 (Annexure P-5) found petitioner to be suitable for appointment as Lambardar. Respondent No.5-Mastan Singh aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, CWP No.9004 of 2008 [3] Ferozepur, who vide order dated 30.4.2007 (Annexure P-6) dismissed the appeal. Mastan Singh-respondent No.5 then filed a revision petition before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab, who vide order dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure P-7) observed that the choice to the post of Lambardar had been restricted to only between the two brothers. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the District Collector, Muktsar for inviting fresh applications for a wider choice. Aggrieved against the said order dated 29.1.2008 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in which notice of motion was issued. Reply has been filed by respondent No.5 Mastan Singh, in which he has stated that the impugned order may be quashed and he may be appointed as Lambardar of the village. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the entire matter it may be noticed that there is no allegation by either of the contestants that there has been any improper procedure that may have been adopted regarding proclamation that was made in the village. There is no complaint that the proclamation that was made was improper. Therefore, it may appropriately be noticed that there was no occasion for the learned Financial Commissioner to order for inviting fresh applications for the post of Lambardar by the revenue authorities. In the case of Jasvir Singh Vs. The Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab and others, (CWP No.5540 of 2008) decided on 20.01.2009 this Court in somewhat similar circumstances, where the learned Financial Commissioner had remanded the Lambardari case to the District Collector, Muktsar for inviting fresh applications for appointment of Lambardar as he was of the view that the petitioner therein and the other candidates were not the right choice observed that the petitioner as well as the respondents therein would have a grievance about the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner CWP No.9004 of 2008 [4] as a view had been taken that none of the candidates were fit for the appointment. It was observed that this was not the case set up or pleaded before the learned Financial Commissioner. Besides, it was observed that a view is possible that an appellate authority is normally to consider the appeal filed before it and it may either grant the relief by allowing the appeal or dismiss the same. However, the authority deciding the appeal would not have the power to set at naught the entire process by saying that no candidate was fit for appointment. The said observations would of course depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there may be cases where no candidate is suitable. In the present case, however, it may be noticed that it is not the case of the petitioner or respondent No.5 that the candidates were not fit for appointment as Lambardar or that improper or defective process had been adopted in the decision making process. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Financial Commissioner for inviting fresh applications in the facts and circumstances of the present case is not tenable. In fact both the learned counsel have prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for remitting the case for re-consideration. The matter is, therefore, liable to be considered on the basis of inter se merit of the candidates. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 29.01.2008 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner is set aside and quashed and the matter is remanded back to the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab to reconsider the matter on the basis of inter se merit of the parties. Parties shall appear before the learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab for further proceedings. (S.S. SARON) 15.10.09 JUDGE neetu/amit