***

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (ORAL) –

CM-3985-LPA-2019

This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 349 days in filing the appeal.

Keeping in view the facts mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 349 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

LPA -1777-2019 (O&M)

1. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the order dated 20.09.2018, passed in CWP-16256-2015 by the learned Single Judge by which, the direction given by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure P-5) to fill up the vacancy of Lambardar in village Hazara, Jalandhar, afresh, has been set aside and the order dated 23.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, appointing respondent No.1-writ petitioner as Lambardar, has been restored.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that once, the Financial Commissioner had remanded the matter back to the Collector for fresh decision after setting aside the order dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division (whereby the appellant was appointed as Lambardar), the direction given by the learned Single Judge restoring the original order of the Collector dated 23.02.2012 is incorrect, more so when the selected Lambardar-respondent No.1 has settled in Canada. Therefore, the Collector must make a fresh appointment on merit according to the order of the Financial Commissioner so that the appellant can also compete once again for the said post.

3. The learned State Counsel submits that once, the Collector has appointed respondent No.1 as Lambardar vide order dated 23.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) and the interference in the said appointment by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, was held to be unjustified and unnecessary by the learned Single Judge, the impugned order passed by him restoring the appointment of respondent No. 1 was perfectly valid and legal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

5. Once, the Collector had appointed respondent No.1 as Lambardar vide order dated 23.02.2012 (Annexure P-1), the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, should not have appointed the appellant after setting aside the respondent’s appointment in appeal vide order dated 10.01.2014 (Annexure P-3), rather, he should have directed the filling up of the vacancy in the manner required by law. Therefore, the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 26.05.2015 (Annexure P-5) has rightly set aside the said order of the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division. However, the direction passed by the Financial Commissioner to fill up the vacancy of Lambardar afresh while refusing to restore respondent No.-1’s appointment as made by the Collector, has been held to be incorrect by the learned Single Judge, and rightly so, in view of the fact that the FIR against the said respondent was lodged at a subsequent stage and the same could not have been a ground to deny the respondent his appointment as Lambardar.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to show how the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perverse either to the facts or law.

7. In the absence of any perversity pointed out, no ground is made out for interference by this Court.

8. The present appeal is dismissed.

9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Appeal dismissed.

********