Gurjant Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) ... on 7 September, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurjant Singh vs Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) ... on 7 September, 2012

Bench: Ranjit Singh

Civil Writ Petition No. 20626 of 2011                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                    Civil Writ Petition No. 20626 of 2011
                       Date of decision : 07.09.2012


Gurjant Singh

                                                       ......Petitioner

                       Versus

Financial Commissioner (Appeals-I) Punjab and another

                                                       .....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH


1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:     Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.
             Mr. Yatinder Sharma, DAG Punjab
             for the State.
             Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate
             for respondent No. 2

RANJIT SINGH, J.

The post of Lambardar of village Kulwanoo, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala fell vacant on the death of Bhola Singh, the previous Lambardar who was real uncle(chacha) of the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No. 2-Amrik Singh were the two candidates who were in the field of consideration. The Assistant Collector IInd Grade and Ist Grade recommended the name of the petitioner. The Collector appointed respondent No. 2 ignoring the recommendations on the ground that he had more land. As per the petitioner, the entire land of respondent No. 2 was under mortgage. In addition, it is pointed out that criminal case was registered against Civil Writ Petition No. 20626 of 2011 2 respondent No. 2 under Section 379 IPC for theft of canal water.

The petitioner filed an appeal against this order on these grounds but the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the same on 4.11.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Financial Commissioner who dismissed his revision petition on 25.03.2010. The petitioner, as such has approached this Court through present writ petition.

The counsel for the petitioner, claims that the petitioner carries much more better merits in various para-metres that were required to be considered which have been wrongly and unfairly ignored by all the Authorities while making this appointment. In this regard, it is pointed out in the petition that petitioner is 29 years old whereas respondent No. 2 is 26 years of age. Petitioner is M.A. pass whereas respondent No. 2 is 8th pass. Name of the petitioner has been recommended by more persons as compare to respondent No.

2. Though, respondent No. 2 has some more land but his total land is stated to be under mortgage. The petitioner also has hereditary claim as the deceased Lambardar was his real uncle(chacha). Assistant Collector Ist and IInd Grade had recommended the name of the petitioner and mention is made to the criminal case registered against respondent No. 2 which is cited as major disqualification and which is allegedly ignored by all authorities.

Notice of motion was issued. Reply is filed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that a false case was registered against respondent No. 2 concerning theft of tap water. He has placed on record judgment passed by Sub Civil Writ Petition No. 20626 of 2011 3 Divisional Magistrate, Samana showing that the case registered against respondent No. 2 was false. The counsel has also taken me through the relevant part of the judgment. No doubt respondent No. 2 was acquitted of the allegation but in the judgment it is also recorded that he had deposited the arrears alongwith fine to the Department. Besides this, the authorities concerned were required to keep the other relevant considerations in view before passing order. Better educational qualification of petitioner has been ignored simply on the ground that merely because he is M.A. would not entitle him to the appointment. That may be so, still that is not the only better claim put up by the petitioner. It would have been appropriate if all the merits and demerits had been properly analysed and considerations. The effect of presentation of challan and acquittal of respondent No. 2 in the case was a relevant factor. So also the fact that he had deposited some fine which perhaps had led to the report by the authorities for cancellation of the challan. He faced trial and prosecution which of course may not in itself be a disqualification.

In my view, all his relevant considerations were not properly analysed by all the authorities in chain. It would, therefore, be appropriate to remand this case back to the Collector to reconsider the case of appointment of Lambardar afresh. He would also be at liberty to open the field for consideration by inviting fresh applications. The impugned orders passed by the Collector, Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner are set aside. The case will now go back to the Collector for initiating the process of Civil Writ Petition No. 20626 of 2011 4 appointment of Lambardar.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

September 07, 2012                              ( RANJIT SINGH )
reena                                                JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court