***

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) –

CWP-17244-2019

By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order passed by respondent No.2, dated 28.12.2018 and that passed by respondent No.1, dated 18.03.2019, whereby the order passed by District Collector appointing the petitioner as Lambardar, has been set aside.

2. The issue involved in the present writ petition is:

‘Whether the Commissioner rightly interfered in the order passed by District Collector appointing the petitioner as Lambardar?”

3. While considering the comparative merit of the petitioner vis-a-vis private respondent, Collector opined as under:

“xxx Baldev Singh is a suitable candidate and he is having a good character. He is 58 years old and 9th pass. Permanent resident of the village and remained present in the village. In fact the second candidate Dyal Singh is of 53 years old, 10th pass, doing govt. Job and is handicapped. He has 2 acre land in the village. Due to being employee and after the office hours and on holidays, is not in a position to do the duties of the lambardar effectively. Baldev singh having 4 acre land in the vill. and agriculturist by profession and he has no concern with the political and non-political party. Being son of deceased lambardar knows the work of lambardari and being agriculturist will remain present in the village for obeying the duties of lambardari. SDM/AC Ist grade Kharar also recommended the name Baldev singh candidate for his appointment as lambardar. Therefore while agreeing with the report of SDM-cum-AC Ist grade Kharar, I appoint Baldev singh S/o Jeet singh R/o Vill. Chodiala, tehsil Kharar, Distt. SAS Nagar as new Lambardar (Harijan) on the vacant post due to the death of Jeet singh Lambardar of vill. Chodiala. xxx”

4. The Commissioner vide order dated 28.12.2018 on appeal preferred by respondent No.4, reversed the order observing as under:

“xx it is found that the merit of the appellant and the respondent as per record and order of Distt. Collector is equal. So far as the appellant is concerned, he is 10th pass, having good character and not taking in any part in any political party, he is govt. employee and income tax payee. The appellant is handicapped and 3% reservation has been given to him being handicapped. Tehsildar Kharar also recommended the name of Dyal singh for appointment of lambardar of vill. Chodiala because he owns 2 acre land, he has knowledge of lambardari duties and he is younger in age than respondent and more educational qualification than the respondent. Therefore the appellant being handicapped and younger in age than respondent and more educated and is meritorious candidate than respondent. xxx”

5. The aforesaid order has been upheld by Financial Commissioner in revision.

6. While issuing notice of motion on 27.06.2019, this Court observed as under:

“Inter alia contends that against the impugned order dated 28.12.2018 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner had filed a statutory revision under Section 13 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 challenging his removal as 'Lambardar' of Village Chodiala, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali.

He submits that despite the pronouncement of dismissal of his appeal on 18.03.2019, he has not been provided the copy of the order, to enable him to take further steps to impugn the order under revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner was appointed as 'Lambardar' on 08.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) and ever since has been continuing without any interruption till date. Notice of motion, returnable for 18.07.2019.

Status quo qua the petitioner in terms of the appointment as 'Lambardar' as per Annexure P-1 shall be maintained till the next date of hearing.”

7. In the considered opinion of this Court once the Commissioner opined that both the candidates were equal in merit, there was no reason for the Commissioner to interfere in the choice made by the Collector that too by relying upon 3% reservation to be given to the handicapped persons.

8. That apart, it is also conceded position that at the time of appointment, respondent No.4 was in Govt. Job and thus his availability to the resident of the village was also in issue.

9. In view thereof, this Court finds that the Commissioner erred in law in interfering with the order passed by the District Collector which even as per the Commissioner, was based upon correct evaluation of comparative merit of the candidates. Financial Commissioner in revision failed to appreciate the same and erred in affirming the order passed by the Commissioner.

10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the order passed by the Commissioner as well as Financial Commissioner cannot be sustained. The same are hereby set aside.

11. The present writ petition is allowed.

COCP-1381-2020

Keeping in view that the main writ petition stands allowed, no further order is required to be passed in the present contempt petition. The same is accordingly, disposed off.

2. Pending application, if any, shall also stand disposed off.

3. A copy of this order be kept on the file of other connected case.

Petition allowed.

********