Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdev Singh Lally vs State Of Punjab & Others on 4 December, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.23940 of 2012 :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: December 04, 2012
Gurdev Singh Lally
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab & others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Jaspal Singh Maanipur, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The vacancy of Lambardar in village Kingra Choewala occurred on the death of previous Lambardar. The process to appoint Lambardar was initiated. Proclamation was done in the village and three applications were filed by Avtar Singh (respondent No.4), Mohinder Singh and Gurdev Singh (petitioner). Mohinder Singh withdrew in favour of Avtar Singh. The petitioner claims that the authorities recommended his name, but still the Collector appointed respondent No.4. What has weighed with Collector is that the petitioner had migrated from Haryana some years back and, therefore, would not be a suitable candidate. He accordingly appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar.
The petitioner filed an appeal against the appointment of respondent No.4 which the Commissioner allowed. He had set-aside Civil Writ Petition No.23940 of 2012 :2: the appointment of respondent No.4.
Respondent No.4 impugned the order passed by Commissioner by filing revision before the Financial Commissioner. This was also dismissed on 20.12.2002 when respondent No.4 approached this court by way of a civil writ petition. The order passed by the Financial Commissioner was set-aside and directions were issued that the appeal be decided afresh in accordance with law. It was observed that the appellate authority had usurped the powers of the appointing authority.
On remand, the matter was placed before the Commissioner, who this time dismissed the appeal of the petitioner, against which he filed a revision before the Financial Commissioner, who set-aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remanded the case back to the appellate authority. Against this order, respondent No.4 filed a civil writ petition and the case was again remanded back to respondent No.1 with a direction to decide the case afresh after hearing the counsel for the parties. In compliance with this direction, the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed upholding the order passed by the Collector. The petitioner has now challenged the said order through the present writ petition.
The Financial Commissioner has noticed that there is not much to choose between the two candidates in terms of their respective merits. He found the petitioner little better educated, but respondent No.4 was younger and a grandson of a former Lambardar. Both the candidates had a record of social service to their credit. The Financial Commissioner has noticed that there were Civil Writ Petition No.23940 of 2012 :3: allegations against the petitioner for having encroached the Panchayat land which were rebutted but no documents to contradict the Kanungo report placed on record. The petitioner was found to be not an original inhabitant of the village and had migrated only a few years ago. The procedural irregularities as alleged were also considered, but the Financial Commissioner found that all the arguments raised by the petitioner were noticed and considered by the Commissioner and accordingly he has decided to uphold the order passed by the Collector.
The only ground advanced before me is that the order passed by the Collector is perverse as the petitioner has a better merit. The issue of merit was duly considered by the Collector and all the authorities concerned. The case has reached this court on more than one occasion and was remanded by this court twice. It was observed by this court earlier that choice exercised by the Collector cannot be lightly disturbed and would call for interference only when it is found to be perverse or illegal. There is nothing seen in this regard. That being the position, the authorities have now considered the issues and have upheld the choice exercised by the Collector, which does not seem to be perverse or suffering from any infirmity, which would call for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
December 04, 2012 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE