Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I) on 27 February, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
CWP No. 18677 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 18677 of 2006
Date of Decision: February 27, 2012
Sukhdev Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
Financial Commissioner (Appeal-I), Punjab and others.
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.K.Gupta, Sr. DAG, Punjab,
for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate,
for respondent No.4.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral)
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 09.01.2006 (Annexure P/9) passed by respondent No.1 - Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I), Punjab, whereby revision petition of respondent No.4 Gurdial Singh has been accepted and he has been appointed as Lambardar of the Village.
Brief facts of the case are that on account of death of Kahan Singh, previous Lambardar of village Malakpur, District Mansa, a post of Lambardar fell vacant in the village. The Competent Authority directed the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Mansa to make proclamation in the village for filling up the said vacancy. In CWP No. 18677 of 2006 2 pursuance of the directions of the authorities, a proclamation was made. In pursuance of proclamation, three candidates, namely, Gurdial Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Sukhdev Singh, submitted their applications for the post of Lambardar. However, name of Mukhtair Singh was not considered due to his absence. Only two candidates, namely, Gurdial Singh (respondent No.4) and Sukhdev Singh (petitioner) remained in fray. The character and antecedents of both the candidates were got verified from the concerned police. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, recommended the name of respondent No.4 - Gurdial Singh for the post of Lambardar and sent the case to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa. After hearing both the candidates, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has also recommended the name of respondent No.4. The Collector, after appreciating the comparative merits of the candidates, appointed petitioner - Sukhdev Singh as Lambardar of the village vide order dated 17.07.2003 (Annexure P/7). Aggrieved against the order of the Collector, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. Vide order dated 24.12.2003 (Annexure P/8), appeal of respondent No.4 has been dismissed by the Commissioner. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed a revision petition and the same has been accepted by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 09.01.2006 (Annexure P/9) and orders of the Collector and the Commissioner have been set aside. Hence, this writ petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that choice of the petitioner cannot be lightly set aside, unless it is perverse. The CWP No. 18677 of 2006 3 Commissioner has affirmed the order of the Collector and the Financial Commissioner has set aside both the orders only on the ground that the petitioner did not appear before him and the Financial Commissioner wanted to test the literacy of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the case was fixed for 05.01.2006, but the case could not be taken up on that day as 05.01.2006 was declared as holiday and the case was taken up on 09.01.2006 and the impugned order (Annexure P/9) was passed. The impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioner and is not sustainable.
Learned counsel for respondent No.4 did not deny the factum of declaration of holiday on 05.01.2006. However, it is mentioned in the reply that the Financial Commissioner, in fact, took up the case on 05.01.2006 and adjourned the case for 09.01.2006. On that date, the matter was heard on merit. Furthermore, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has pointed out that the order of the Collector suffers from perversity. The candidature of respondent No.4 has been rejected on the ground that Gurdial Singh is a truck driver and does not remain in the Village for days together and has misled the Court that he is real grandson of Kahan Singh whereas he is grandson of Kahan Singh's real brother Niranjan Singh. Besides this, petitioner is a handicapped person and will not be in a position to help the villagers effectively.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the Collector for a fresh decision as a candidate cannot be deprived of his right for consideration merely on the ground that he works as a truck driver. CWP No. 18677 of 2006 4 Everybody for livelihood has to do some work. There is no bar in the Act that person working is not eligible to be appointed as Lambardar. There is also no provision whereby a handicapped person cannot be considered for the post of Lambardar.
In view of the above facts, I deem it appropriate that the case be remanded to the Collector to decide the matter on merit afresh, within three months from receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
The parties are directed to appear before the Collector, on 26.03.2012.
No order as to costs.
February 27, 2012 (Paramjeet Singh) vkd Judge