Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raminder Kaur vs The Financial Commissioner Punjab on 31 October, 2025
CWP-32097-2025 (O&M) -1- 133 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Keke kek CWP-32097-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.10.2025 Raminder Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Financial Commissioner, Punjab (Appeals) and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER Present: | Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. 3k ok HARSH BUNGER, J. (Oral)
Petitioner (Raminder Kaur) has filed the instant Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting aside order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Collector, Hoshiarpur, whereby respondent No.4 (Satnam Singh) has been appointed as lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Harkhowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur.
1.1 A further prayer has been made for setting aside order dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar and order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Financial Commissioner, Punjab.
2. Briefly, on demise of Sh. Bhag Mal, previous lambardar of Village Harkhowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, proceedings were HIMANI GUPTA 2025.11.04 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-32097-2025 (O&M) -2- initiated for filling up the vacancy, wherein the petitioner- Raminder Kaur as well as respondent No.4- Satnam Singh were also the candidates.
2.1 It transpires that initially although the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur recommended the candidature of the petitioner- Raminder Kaur for appointment to the aforesaid vacancy, however, the learned Collector vide its order dated 11.07.2017 (Annexure P-3) had remanded the matter back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to submit fresh recommendation in light of the instructions/rules. 2.2 Thereafter, the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur as well as the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hoshiarpur recommended the candidature of respondent No.4- Satnam Singh for the appointment to the aforesaid vacancy and the matter was placed before the learned Collector, Hoshiarpur.
2.3 Learned Collector, Hoshiarpur, upon consideration of the relative merits and de merits of the candidates, found respondent No.4- Satnam Singh as more suitable candidate and accordingly appointed him as lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Harkhowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur vide order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-6).
2.4 Feeling aggrieved against the Collector's order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2020 (Annexure P-8). 2.5 Still aggrieved, the petitioner- Raminder Kaur preferred a revision petition (ROR No.58 of 2021) before the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-10).
HIMANI GUBTA In the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner has filed the I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-32097-2025 (O&M) -3- instant Writ Petition before this Court for seeking the relief(s) as noticed hereinabove.
4. Heard.
5. In the instant case, respondent No.4- Satnam Singh was appointed as the lambardar (Scheduled Caste) of Village Harkhowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur by the learned Collector vide order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-6).
6. It is well settled that in the matter of appointment of lambardar, the choice of Collector is not to be lightly interfered with even if two views are possible, unless there is patent illegality or perversity. Recently, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 2217 of 2024 titled as "Murti Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.", decided on 09.07.2025 has observed as under:
"8. Moreover, it is a settled position that choice of the Collector in respect to appointment to the post of Lambardar should not be set aside until and unless there is patent illegality or perversity pointed out therein. Interference is also not called for only on the ground that two views may be possible. In this respect gainful reference can be made to judgments of this High Court in Neeraj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2013 (2) RCR (Civil) and Sukhminder Singh Vs. the Financial Commissioner and others 1992 PLJ 325".
7. I have gone through the order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Collector and upon consideration of the matter, I do not find any illegality or perversity therein. Further, the order dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Collector has been affirmed by learned Commissioner as well as learned Financial Commissioner.
HIMANI GUPTA 2025.11.04 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentCWP-32097-2025 (O&M) 4.
8. Considering the totality of circumstances, I see no compelling reason, which may warrant interference by this Court. Resultantly, the instant writ petition fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed.
9. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
31.10.2025 (HARSH BUNGER) Himani JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No HIMANI GUPTA 2025.11.04 11:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document