22.01.2025 GURSHARAN SINGH v. AMANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16196-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.01.2025 GURSHARAN SINGH …Petitioner Versus AMANDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present : Mr. R.S. Athwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Nirmaljit Singh Diwana, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab. HARSH BUNGER, J. (ORAL) CM-16544-CWP-2024 This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC for placing on record the reply along with Annexure R/1, filed on behalf of respondent No.1. For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for. Reply along with Annexure R-1, filed on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CWP-16196-2022 (O&M) Petitioner-Gursharan Singh has filed the instant writ petition, under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the order dated 07.02.2022 Priyanka 2025.06.03 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 1 of 5 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab. 2. Briefly, on demise of Sh. Gurdev Singh, previous Lambardar (General) of Village Dariyapur, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, proceedings were initiated for filling up the vacancy wherein, petitioner-Gursharan Singh and respondent No.1-Amandeep Singh were also the candidates. The learned Tehsildar, Jalandhar-2, recommended the candidature of respondent No.1- Amandeep Singh, whereas, learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar-2, recommended the candidature of petitioner-Gursharan Singh for appointment to the afore-said vacancy and the matter was placed before the learned Collector, Jalandhar. 2.1 The learned Collector, Jalandhar, upon considering the relative merits/de-merits of the candidates, found petitioner-Gursharan Singh as the suitable candidate and accordingly, appointed him as the Lambardar of Village Dariyapur, vide order dated 31.03.2016 (Annexure P-1). 2.2 Feeling aggrieved against the Collector’s order, respondent No.1-Amandeep Singh preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar. Similarly, another candidate namely, Swaran Singh also challenged the Collector’s order by filing a separate appeal before the learned Commissioner. Both the afore-said appeals came to be dismissed by the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide its common order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P-2) and the Collector’s order was maintained. 2.3 Still aggrieved, respondent No.1-Amandeep Singh preferred a revision petition (ROR-327-2018) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, which has been allowed vide order dated 07.02.2022 Priyanka 2025.06.03 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 2 of 5 (Annexure P-3); whereby, the orders passed by the learned Collector, Jalandhar as well as the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar have been set aside and respondent No.1-Amandeep Singh has been appointed as the Lambardar (General) of Village Dariyapur. 2.4 In the afore-mentioned circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court, for the relief/s, as noticed here-in-above. 3. 4. Heard. Here, it would be apposite to refer to the relative merits of the petitioner-Gursharan Singh and respondent No.1-Amandeep Singh, as noticed by the learned Collector, which are as under :- S. No. Particulars Age Petitioner (Gursharan Singh) 24 years Respondent No.1 (Amandeep Singh) 35 years 1 2 3 4 5 Educational qualification Land holding/s B.Com pass and Pursuing Law Studies 35 kanals 12th Class pass 15 kanal-12 marla area Recommended by Sub-Divisional Tehsildar, Jalandhar-2 Other remarks Magistrate, Jalandhar-2 President of Athola Fitness Health Club and had planted trees Grandson of deceased lambardar. 5. The learned Collector, after noticing the fact that the petitioner is younger in age; more educated than respondent No.1 and also that his name has been recommended by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar-2, appointed him as the lambardar of Village Dariyapur. 6. The Collector’s order has been further affirmed by the learned Commissioner. However, the learned Financial Commissioner has set aside the orders passed by the learned Collector as well as the learned Commissioner, by observing as under :- Priyanka 2025.06.03 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document “…I am of the considered view that the petitioner is having better merits than the respondent no.1 as the petitioner is 35 Page 3 of 5 years of age and is more mature, having more land holding and having hereditary claim and having enough qualification for the post of lambardar and also familiar with lambardari work as his grandfather and Great grandfather were lambardar of village. In the present case, District Collector as well as Divisional Commissioner did not exercise their choice judiciously. Therefore, intervention from this court is required. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case brought to my knowledge, I accept this revision petition and order dated 18.09.2017 passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division Jalandhar and order dated 31.03.2016 passed by District Collector, Jalandhar are set aside. The petitioner is appointed as lambardar of the village. District Collector, Jalandhar is directed to issue `Sanad Lambardari’ in his favour. Copy of this order be communicated to the courts below. File be consigned to the record room.” 7. In my considered view, the learned Financial Commissioner, has erred in law and fact in appointing respondent No.1-Amandeep Singh, as the lambardar, without taking into consideration the well settled law that the choice of Collector in the matter of appointment of Lambardar is not to be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible, unless there is any patent illegality or perversity therein. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in case titled as Kuldip Singh vs Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab, 2016(1) RCR (Civil) 273. 8. Apparently, the petitioner herein, is younger in age and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of 'Mahavir Singh v. Khiali Ram and others', 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 757, has held that the age of a candidate is a relevant factor for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Priyanka 2025.06.03 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 4 of 5 8.1 In my view, the educational qualification of a candidate is also a relevant consideration for appointment of a Lambardar as the same would clearly fall for consideration under the aspect of “ability” of a candidate, especially taking into consideration the nature of duties to be performed by a Lambardar. 9. Considering the totality of circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Collector, Jalandhar had rightly appointed the petitioner as the lambardar, which was further rightly affirmed by learned Commissioner. However, the learned Financial Commissioner could not have ignored the subjective satisfaction of the learned Collector as well as learned Commissioner in a cavalier manner. 10.
Decision
In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, is set aside and the order passed by the learned Collector, Jalandhar, appointing the petitioner as the lambardar of Village Dariyapur, which has been further affirmed by the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar is hereby, maintained. 11. All pending application/s, if any, shall also stand closed. January 22, 2025 gurpreet (HARSH BUNGER) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No Priyanka 2025.06.03 13:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page 5 of 5