JUDGMENT

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. -- Jagjit Singh, the unsuccessful candidate for appointment on the post of Lambardar of village Dhada, Tehsil and District Jalandhar, has filed this Letters Patent Appeal, challenging the order dated 9.2.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby his writ petition (CWP No. 47 of 2008), praying for quashing the order dated 17.10.2007, passed by the Financial Commissioner, Animal Husbandry, Punjab, Chandigarh, has been dismissed.

2. Though this appeal is barred by limitation and the appellant has filed an application (CM No. 1225 of 2011), duly supported by an affidavit, for condoning the delay of 290 days in re-filing the appeal, and another application (CM No. 1224 of 2011), duly supported by an affidavit, for condoning the delay of 8 days in filing the appeal, but we have heard learned counsel for the appellants on merits.

3. The instant case pertains to the appointment of Lambardar of village Dhada, Tehsil and District Jalandhar. The said post of Lambardar fell vacant on account of the death of the previous Lambardar. This post was reserved for the Scheduled Caste community. The appellant, respondent No.5 Hazara Ram and five other persons, were the contestants for the post. The Collector, Jalandhar, who was the appointing authority, while taking into consideration the recommendation of Naib Tehsildar, Bhogpur and the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jalandhar, and while considering the comparative merits of all the candidates, appointed respondent No.5 as Lambardar of the village, vide his order dated 29.1.2004 (Annexure P-6).

4. The appellant challenged the above said order by filing appeal before the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, who vide his order dated 6.1.2005 (Annexure P-7), after setting aside the order of the Collector, appointed the appellant as Lambardar of the village.

5. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.5 challenged the said order before the Financial Commissioner, who vide his order dated 17.10.2007 (Annexure P-9) set aside the order of the Commissioner and restored the order of the Collector, after coming to the conclusion that the Commissioner has arbitrarily set aside the order of the Collector on the perverse ground, whereas the Commissioner is normally not supposed to interfere in the choice of the Collector.

6. The appellant challenged the order of the Financial Commissioner by filing the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, after coming to the following conclusion :

“... A number of judgments have been cited on behalf of respondents to canvass that the choice of the Collector is not to be interfered in regard to the appointment of Village headman. Reference is made to a Division Bench judgment in the cased of Om Parkash vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 690, Jog Dhian vs. Financial Commissioner, Haryana and others, 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 658 and Nirbhey Singh vs. Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Haryana, 2008(1) Volume 8 Local Acts Reporter, 1. The dictum of all these judgments is that in the case of appointment of Lambardar, the choice of the Collector must be respected and accepted unless it is perverse. This seems to be a settled proposition of law. Applying the aforesaid ratio of various judgments of this Court, it is to be seen whether the opinion of the Collector suffers from any perversity. The Collector has selected respondent no.5 who admittedly belongs to Harijan community and is an Ex-serviceman. The allegations of the petitioner that respondent no.5 suffers from heart disease have not been established by any documentary and medical evidence. Even if such an allegation is true, merely that a person is a heart patient is not sufficient to deprive him of the appointment unless the ailment is to such an extent that he is unable to perform duty. There is no material on record to infer such a thing. Thus, the allegations against respondent no.5 have not been established. Financial Commissioner has concurred with the opinion of the Collector which is not to be interfered lightly, in view of the settled position of law.”

7. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and keeping in view the aforesaid factual and legal position, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered in the order of the Financial Commissioner. It is not disputed before us that respondent No.5 belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and is an Ex-Serviceman. We concur with the reasoning, given by the Financial Commissioner as well as the learned Single Judge that an Ex-Serviceman should be given preference vis-à-vis the other candidate in the matter of appointment of Lambardar, particularly when the post is reserved for the Scheduled Caste community. In our opinion, the Commissioner was not justified in interfering in the choice of the Collector, on flimsy ground that respondent No.5 was plying an autorickshaw and was a heart patient. On such a ground, choice of the Collector appointing a person, who is Ex-Serviceman and also belongs to the community for which the post is reserved, should not have been interfered and such interference, in our opinion, has rightly been assessed by the Financial Commissioner as an arbitrary and perverse interference in the choice of the Collector.

8. Thus, in our view, there is no merit in the instant appeal.

9. Dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

********