22.09.2025 SURINDER KU R KUMAR … v. FINANCIAL CO AL COMMISSIONER
Case Details
IN THE H AB AND HARYANA HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A RH AT CHANDIGARH 142 LPA No. Date of de No.2856 of 2025 (O&M) e of decision: 22.09.2025 SURINDER KU R KUMAR …. Appellant Versus FINANCIAL CO AL COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ALS), PUNJAB AND OTHERS …. Respondents CORAM: HON HON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE (cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:4) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:5) (cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:5) Present : Mr
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sureseh Kumar Aneja, Advocat dvocate for the appellant. **** (cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:5), J. (oral) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:7) In the present appeal, the chall In 1. ated challenge is to the order dated 11.08.2025 pass passed by learned Single Judge in by in CWP No.23074 of 2025 by which, the appo appointment of respondent No.4 as Chak o.4 as a Lamberdar of village Chak Kheyo Wali, Teh li, Tehsil and District Fazilka has bee
Decision
tition as been upheld and the writ petition filed by the ap the appellant who was petitioner b ench, ner before learned Single Bench, challenging the s g the said appointment has been dismis dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant su Lear the lant submits that keeping in view the fact that father ather and grandfather of the appella , the ppellant were the Lamberdars, the appellant should should have been appointed as a L ving s a Lamberdar as he was having superior qualific ualification and was meritorious en as a ous enough to be appointed as a Lamberdar in pre r in preference to respondent No.4. 3. We have heard learned counsel for We gone sel for the appellant and have gone through the recor ord with his able assistance. 4. It may be noticed that none of the It m rned, f the revenue authorities concerned, has found the ap the appellant meritorious enough to rdar. gh to be appointed as a Lamberdar. Jyoti 2025.09.25 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2856 of 2025 (O&M) LPA -2- The recommend mendations which were made by - e by the Tehsildar and the Sub- Divisional Magis Magistrate were in favour of responde After spondent No.4 i.e. Baldev Raj. After the Collector a ctor appointed Baldev Raj to the said o the post in question, the said appointment was nt was challenged by the appellant as - lant as well as by respondent No.5- Ravinder Kumar umar before the appellate authority a i.e. ority and the appellate authority i.e. the Divisional C onal Commissioner, set aside the app No.4 he appointment of respondent No.4 and appointed re nted respondent No.5-Ravinder Kuma order Kumar as a Lamberdar vide order dated 24.03.202 3.2025. The said order dated 24.0 ional 24.03.2025 passed by Divisional Commissioner, F r, Ferozepur was challenged befor ioner before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punja Punjab by respondent No.4-Baldev inder aldev Raj as well as by Ravinder Kumar-responde pondent No.5. The Financial Commiss ated mmissioner set aside the order dated 24.03.2025 passe passed by the Divisional Commissio tated missioner, Ferozepur and reinstated respondent No.4 t No.4 as a Lamberdar vide order dated was r dated 26.05.2025, which order was impugned by the by the appellant before the learned Sin ingle ed Single Judge. The learned Single Judge after ap er appreciating all the facts that ional that except for the Divisional Commissioner, F oner, Ferozepur, respondent No.4 has b e for 4 has been the unanimous choice for the post of Lam f Lamberdar of the village concerne rities ncerned by all the other authorities concerned, and a and accordingly, dismissed the writ p iling writ petition, which led to the filing of the present app ent appeal. 5. As per the settled principles of As a les of law, the appointment of a candidate to the p to the post of the Lamberdar, candidate said ndidate chosen and appointed on said post by the reven e revenue authorities needs no interfer said nterference unless and until, the said candidate is foun is found to be ineligible to be appoint esent ppointed on said post. In the present case, at no give given point of time, starting from e by from the recommendation made by Tehsildar up to up to the Financial Commissioner’s the ’s, no authority has found the Jyoti 2025.09.25 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA No.2856 of 2025 (O&M) LPA -3- appellant to be to be more suitable than responden as a ondent No.4 to be appointed as a Lamberdar. Th r. Though, the Divisional Comm Commissioner, Ferozepur ound found respondent No.5 t No.5 to be more meritorious than res order han respondent No.4 and vide order dated 24.03.2025 3.2025, appointed respondent No.5 to said o.5 to the said post but even the said order was set set aside by the Financial Com ated Commissioner vide order dated 26.05.2025 whic which order has been upheld by the l y the learned Single Judge. 6. Merely, because the appellant c Mer than llant claims to be younger than respondent No.4 t No.4, same is not a valid ground so n of so as to override the selection of respondent No.4 .4 as a Lamberdar. Once the claim dates e claim raised by various candidates has been consid considered and amongst all those can has se candidates, respondent No.4 has been found to be to be more meritorious than the app t that he appellant along with the fact that respondent No.4 t No.4 is eligible to be appointed to th ng in d to the said post, hence, keeping in view the fact th fact that no perversity has been poin rders n pointed out in any of the orders passed by the au the authorities as well as the learned hen arned Single Judge, especially when no hereditary rig right can be claimed to be appointe nd is ppointed as Lamberdar, no ground is made out to allow o allow the present appeal and the hen he hence, the same is dismissed. 7. Pending application, if any, also stan Pend lso stands disposed of. (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:25)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4) (cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:7)(cid:9)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:1)(cid:5)(cid:26)(cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:27)(cid:14)(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:15)(cid:18)(cid:19)(cid:15)(cid:20)(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:8) (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:1) (cid:21)(cid:22)(cid:8)(cid:21)(cid:23)(cid:21)(cid:24)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:8) (cid:25)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:13)(cid:2)(cid:4)(cid:8)(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:26)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:27)(cid:14)(cid:28)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:8) (cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8)(cid:8) Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable : Yes/N es/No. es/No Yes/N Jyoti 2025.09.25 13:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document