JUDGMENT

REKHA MITTAL, J. –

C.M.No. 2096 of 2012

The appellant has filed this application for condonation of delay of 42 days in filing the appeal. It is contended that the appellant remained under treatment in hospital from 16.2.2012 to 24.2.2012 with regard to replacement of knee joints and was advised rest after discharge, therefore, he could not file the appeal within the statutory period.

In view of the averments made in the application, the application filed by the appellant is allowed and delay of 42 days, in filing the appeal, is condoned.

C.M.No. 2098 of 2012

Allowed as prayed for.

C.M.No. 2097 of 2012 and

LPA No. 787 of 2012

1. The appellant challenges order dated 13.2.2012, whereby his writ petition has been dismissed.

2. Jaspal Singh-respondent No. 4 was appointed as a Lambardar of village Supariwind, Tehsil and District Amritsar, by the Collector, Amritsar, having been found the most suitable candidate. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, which was accepted and the appellant was appointed as Lambardar. Jaspal Singh-respondent No. 4 filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, which was accepted and the case was remanded to the District Collector, Amritsar, for re-consideration. After remand, the District Collector again appointed Jaspal Singh-respondent No. 4 as Lambardar, being the most suitable candidate. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, and the same was dismissed. The revision petition preferred by the appellant before the Financial Commissioner(Revenue) Punjab, also met the same fate. The orders passed by the District Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were affirmed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Counsel for the appellant has contended that respondent No. 4 does not belong to village Supariwind, as he is a permanent resident of village Killa. It is further contended that the appellant has experience of Lambardari being the grand son of Wadhawa Singh, the previous Lambardar of the village.

4. We have heard counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned order and find no reason to entertain the appeal.

5. The Collector, Commissioner and Financial Commissioner have recorded concurrent findings that respondent No. 4 is the better candidate. The plea of the appellant that respondent No. 4 is a resident of village Killa, is of no relevance, in view of the conceded position that villages Supariwind and Killa have the same Hadbast No. 311 and there is no separate Lambardar for village Killa. The Collector assessed the comparative merits of candidates and appointed Jaspal Singh-respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. In a process of selection, perceptions as to the comparative merits and suitability of a candidate, would vary from person to person and, therefore, from Court to Court. It is an established principle that judicial review of such an order is confined to an appraisal of the impugned order so as to discern whether it is perverse, arbitrary or violates the provisions of any statutory enactment. Thus, till such time the choice of the Collector does not suffer from any of the above disabilities, it shall be deemed to be final. As the order passed by the Collector, is neither perverse nor arbitrary and does not infringe any statutory provision, the choice of the Collector was rightly upheld by the Commissioner, Financial Commissioner and the learned Single Judge.

6. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

********