JUDGMENT

JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL).—

Civil Misc. No. 5394-LPA of 2013

1.  In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of seven days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

Letters Patent Appeal No. 2127 of 2013

2. In this appeal, dispute is for the post of Lambardar in village Bheniwal, Tehsil and District Mansa. On accrual of the said post, applications were invited. On report made by the Field Revenue Staff, six candidates emerged as the contesting candidates before the Collector, Mansa. After noting their comparative qualifications, appellant was appointed as Lambardar against the above said post by the Collector on 13.3.2009. The Collector ignored claim of respondent No.5-Sewak Singh by observing that he is less meritorious candidate.

3. We have seen the chart given by the Collector at page No. 57 of the paper-book showing educational qualifications of both the candidates. Appellant is 10+2, whereas respondent No.5-Sewak Singh is matric passed. As such, virtually, there is no difference so far as educational qualifications are concerned. Respondent No.5 went in appeal, which was dismissed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot on 23.4.2010. He succeeded in revision, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab on 24.9.2013. Appointment of the appellant was set aside and respondent No.5-Sewak Singh was appointed against the post of Lambardar in village Bheniwal. When reversing appellant's appointment, the Financial Commissioner has observed as under:-

“4.   I have carefully considered the rival contentions and have perused the impugned orders. Having done so, and being conscious of the law that the choice of the Collector should primarily be respected, still I find it a fit case to hold that the respondent's appointment as Lambardar cannot be sustained. Though the merits of the two candidates are quite similar, yet in my view the respondent No.1 would not be suitable candidate in view of the nature of his work. He is admittedly a typist sitting in the compound of the Deputy Commissioner office, preparing petition etc. To my mind, it is necessary that these two roles i.e. of a petition writer and lambardar, are not combined in the same person otherwise it could give a fillip to the collusive malpractices that some times afflict the functioning of the Revenue Department, in areas such as registration of documents. Such a situation is best avoided. Thus while being engaging in commercial activity per se cannot be held to be a disqualification yet the nature of the respondent's work does render him unsuitable, in my opinion.”

4. It was noticed against the appellant that he is working as a Typist in the office of Deputy Commissioner at Mansa. This qualification was rightly taken against him. A person who is earning his livelihood at a place away from the village, especially in the office of Deputy Commissioner, may not be easily available to the villagers, as and when his presence is needed. Appellant came to this Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 23630 of 2013. It was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 28.10.2013.

5. It was rightly noticed that the Financial Commissioner's decision not to give post to a person who is working as a Typist in the compound of the office of Deputy Commissioner is perfectly justified. It was noticed that Lambardar is supposed to go to the office of Deputy Commissioner and if this post is given to a person who is permanently sitting in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, probably he may make some malpractice. We are satisfied with the observations made by the Financial Commissioner and the learned Single Judge.

6. Dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

********