IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5307 of 2011 Date of Decision: March 23, 2011 Bahadur Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Amandeep Singh Cheema, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Petitioner, Bahadur Singh, was appointed as Lambardar for village Matti, Sub- Tehsil Bhikhi, Tehsil & District Mansa, vide Order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure P-4). Two appeals were carried against the said order; one by respondent No.4 (Sukhjinder Singh) and the other by respondent No.5 (Niranjan Singh) before the Commissioner. 2. Both the appeals filed by respondent No.4, Sukhjinder Singh and respondent No.5, Niranjan Singh, were dismissed vide Order CWP No.5307 of 2011 [2] dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure P-3). The Financial Commissioner, vide Order dated 4.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed in revision filed by respondent No.4, Sukhjinder Singh, has remanded the case so as to call for fresh applications for the post of Lambardar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Financial Commissioner had no authority to remand the case to invite fresh applications for a better candidate. In this regard, reference has been made to 2008(4) RCR (Civil) 792, ‘Gurlal Singh vs. Financial Commissioner (Revenue) Punjab & others’. 4. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Perusal of Order Annexure P-4 indicates that Sukhjinder Singh was involved in case FIR No.19 dated 17.3.2000 for commission of offence under Sections 452, 354, 34 IPC, Police Station, Bhikhi. Although he was acquitted, however, it cannot be said that the said person was not controversial. The other candidate, respondent No.5, Niranjan Singh, is illiterate and an old person. 6. So far as petitioner is concerned, he is serving in Food Corporation of India as has been noticed in the impugned order (Annexure P-1) CWP No.5307 of 2011 [3] passed by the Financial Commissioner. It has been concluded that the petitioner would not be available to serve as Lambardar. 7. Considering the demerits in the candidates, I am of the considered opinion that the Financial Commissioner has passed the order (Annexure P-1) assigning legal grounds. Lambardar or headman is required to discharge functions under Rule 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules which require a person to be non-controversial and popular as he has to collect various kinds of data in active involvement with the residents in the estate. The nature of duties require such a person to be of clean record and available at all times to give assistance to the revenue officers in discharge of their duties. Since none of the persons has been considered to be suitable, the impugned order has been passed asking the Collector to invite fresh applications in the hope that a better person would apply who could be selected. 8. The judgment rendered in Gurlal Singh’s case (supra) would not have any application, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case because the Financial Commissioner, vide order impugned in that case, asked for fresh applications to seek wider CWP No.5307 of 2011 [4] choice. In the case in hand, some kind of a taint or disability is attached to the claim of every candidate and therefore, the case is not covered by the judgment cited on behalf of the petitioner. 9. No ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 10. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 23, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?