1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10869 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.7.2009 Nishan Singh …. Petitioner Versus The Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Co-operation, Chandigarh and others. …. Respondents Present : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner being unsuccessful for appointment as Lambardar of Village Salarpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 22.5.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector, Jalandhar (respondent No.2) whereby Gurmukh Singh (respondent No.3) was appointed as Lambardar and for quashing the order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Co-operation, Chandigarh (respondent no.1), whereby, the appeal of Gurmukh Singh (respondent no.3) against the order dated 31.3.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar was accepted. A further prayer has been made for directing the District Collector (respondent no.2) to allow the petitioner to perform the duty of Lambardar of village Salarpur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. On the demise of Pala Singh, Lambardar of village Salarpur, the process was initiated to fill the vacant post of Lambardar. Four candidates namely Nishan Singh (petitioner), Gurmukh Singh (respondent no.3) besides Harnek Singh and Santokh Singh applied for -2- CWP No.10869 of 2009 the same. The District Collector (respondent no.2) considered the comparative merit of all the candidates. After consideration, it was inter alia observed that Nishan Singh (petitioner) was doing private job at Phagwara and he would not be available for the inhabitants of Village Salarpur at the time of their need. Gurmukh Singh (respondent no.3), it was observed, was a better candidate, as he was younger in age. Besides, he had a hereditary claim, being the son of the deceased Lambardar. Both the lower revenue officers had also recommended his name. Accordingly, Gurmukh Singh (respondent no.3) was appointed as a Lambardar. The Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar in his order dated 31.3.2004 (Annexure P-2) considered the inter-se merit of all the candidates and found Nishan Singh (petitioner) more suitable. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted and the order dated 22.5.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector (respondent no.4) was set aside. Gurmukh Singh (respondent no.3) aggrieved against the said order filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Co-operation, Chandigarh (respondent No.1) who has set aside order dated 31.3.2004 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and upheld the order dated 22.5.2003 (Annexure P-1) passed by the District Collector (respondent No.2) appointing Gurmukh Singh (respondent No.3) as Lambardar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is more meritorious and suitable than Gurmukh Singh (respondent no.3). However, he has been non-suited on the ground that he was working as a Laboratory Assistant at Ramgarhia College, Phagwara, which was away from village Salarpur. It is submitted that in fact, a claim for appointment as Lambardar of a government employee even is not to be ignored, if he is otherwise eligible and -3- CWP No.10869 of 2009 suitable for the post of Lambardar. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sukhminder Singh V. Financial Commissioner, 1992 P.L.J, 325. Therefore, it is submitted that merely because the petitioner is employed and is working is no ground to non suit him. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perusing the record, it may be noticed that appointment of Lambardar is an administrative act, which is primarily the prerogative of the District Collector and the selection made by him is not to be undone lightly until and unless it is shown that there is some gross irregularity, perversity or patent error while assessing the comparative merit of the candidates. It has been observed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, Co-operation, Chandigarh (respondent No.1) in his order dated 24.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) that the petitioner was working as a Laboratory Assistant at Ramgarhia College, Phagwara, which was away from the village to which the lambardari pertains. It was the admitted position by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the Financial Commissioner that the petitioner gets free only after 2.00 P.M. everyday. Therefore, it was observed that it was very clear that the petitioner would not be available to the village community for serving as a Lambardar during the prime hours of the day. Generally, a Lambardar has to accompany the villagers for going to various Government offices for carrying out attestation of documents and identifying the executant of these documents. Besides, a Lambardar has to assist the revenue functionaries visiting the village from time to time and it was quite obvious that the petitioner would not be able to discharge the functions of Lambardar in an effective manner because of the job he was handling. The fact that he was working on a temporary post and his employer had given him permission did not carry any relevance. It was further observed that though the petitioner -4- CWP No.10869 of 2009 was more educated and takes part in social welfare activities but while making appointment as Lambardar, the availability of the person for the village community was of paramount importance. Moreover, the Collector had also recommended the name of respondent No.3. Therefore, it was observed that petitioner would not be able to discharge the functions of Lambardar in an effective manner. In terms of Rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue (Lambardari) Rules, 1908, the factors which are required to be considered for appointment of Lambardar are:- (a) his hereditary claims; (b) the property in the estate possessed by the candidate to secure the recovery of land revenue; (c) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; (e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; (f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India; It is not in dispute that Gurmukh Singh (respondent no.3), who has been appointed as a Lambardar has a hereditary claim inasmuch as he is the son of the deceased Lambardar. There is land also in the name of his father. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, is not to sit in appeal over the findings and conclusions reached at by the revenue authorities. The jurisdiction of this Court is limited and it is concerned with the decision making process and not the merits and de-merits of the candidate seeking appointment as Lambardar. It is not shown that the decision taken by the Revenue Authorities i.e. the Financial Commissioner (respondent no.1) and the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Collector, Jalandhar (respondent no.2) is in any manner perverse or erroneous, which would want interference of -5- CWP No.10869 of 2009 this Court. The Revenue Authorities after assessing the inter-se merit came to the conclusion that Gurmukh Singh (respondent no.3) would be more suitable and it cannot be said that his choice is in any manner perverse or erroneous, which would warrant interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory writ jurisdiction. The appointment of Lambardar is an administrative act and prerogative of the District Collector and his selection is not to be lightly undone unless there is some gross irregularity, perversity or patent error. In the present case, none has been shown. As regards, the reliance placed on the case of Sukhminder Singh V. Financial Commissioner (supra), it may be noticed that though there is no bar for a Government employee to be appointed as a Lambardar, however, the fact that the availability of the Lambardar in the village for its residents at the time of their need is a circumstance, which is indeed liable be taken into consideration in the process of decision making. The said circumstance has been duly considered. Therefore, in the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE July 23, 2009 gaurav