JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure-P.11) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the said order.
(2.)Gurbax Singh, father of the petitioner was previous Lambardar of Village Burj Sidhwan. On his death on 29.1.2004 the process was initiated for filling the said vacancy of Lambardar. A proclamation was made in the village inviting applications for consideration for appointment as Lambardar. Seven applications were received which included those of Amandeep Singh (petitioner) and Sukhchain Singh (respondent No. 5). The Naib Tehsildar-cum-Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Malout in terms of his order dated 17.6.2004 (Annexure- P.3) found the petitioner suitable for appointment as Lambardar. It was observed that his father late Shri Gurbax Singh was Lambardar of the village and, therefore, he was conversant with the work of Lambardari. Besides, he was working as a Clerk in Government High School, Burj Sidhwan. He was an educated person and had produced his Matriculation certificate. The members of the Panchayat of Burj Sidhwan in terms of their recommendations (Annexure-P.4) also found the petitioner to be more suitable. The Tehsildar, Malout vide his report dated 24.6.2004 also recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. The Assistant Collector Grade I-cum-SDM, Malout vide order dated 5.7.2004 considered the comparative merit of the petitioner and respondent No. 5. It was noticed that petitioner has 15 Killas (Acres) of land and Sukhchain Singh (respondent No. 5) had no land in his own name. Both were working at that time. The petitioner was working as Clerk in Government High School in the village whereas Sukhchain Singh (respondent No. 5) was working on private basis at Malout. Gurbax Singh, father of the petitioner had worked as Lambardar from 1977 to 2004 meaning thereby that the petitioner was from the Lambardari family. It was also observed that there was no impediment for a government employee for being appointed. Balbir Singh, father of Sukhchain Singh (respondent No. 5) had deposed an affidavit (Annexure-P.7) in which he stated that Amandeep Singh (petitioner) had helped his father in the Lambardari work and that he is an educated and a mature person. He, therefore, withdrew his application for Lambardari in favour of the petitioner. The District Collector, Muktsar vide order dated 30.9.2004 (Annexure-P.8) considered the comparative merit of both the candidates. It was observed that both the candidates were working. Amandeep Singh (petitioner) was working as Clerk in Government High School. Sukhchain Singh (respondent No. 5) was working in a private concern at Malout. The petitioner has 15 Killas of land whereas respondent No. 5 had no land of his own and he became owner after decision of a case on transfer basis. Therefore, it was observed that the petitioner was more eligible than the other candidate i.e. respondent No. 5. Besides, Rules 15 and 17 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules were not an impediment for a Government employee to be appointed as Lambardar. On becoming a defaulter, recovery could be easily effected from such a person being a government employee. Besides, the petitioner was son of the deceased Lambardar and was well conversant with the Lambardari work and his name had been recommended by all the lower revenue authorities. Accepting the report, the District Collector, Muktsar vide order dated 30.9.2004 (Annexure-P.8) appointed the petitioner as Lambardar. Sukhchain Singh (respondent No. 5) aggrieved against the said order of the District Collector preferred an appeal and the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division Ferozepur vide order dated 22.12.2005 (Annexure-P.9) dismissed the same. Sanad Nambardari dated 18.1.2005 (Annexure-P.10) was issued in favour of the petitioner. Sukhchain Singh (respondent No. 5) filed a revision petition before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab. The learned Financial Commissioner came to the conclusion that though there was no bar to the appointment of a government employee as a Lambardar, however, in the present case the petitioner was not the right choice for appointment as Lambardar because he was occupying a transferable government post and could be transferred at any time from the village which could cause inconvenience to the residents of village and the revenue officers to whom he was supposed to assist as Lambardar. It was observed that his duty is from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on all working days and as such he could not discharge his duties as Lambardar during the said period. On the other hand Sukhchain Singh (respondent No. 5) was a youngman of 31 years and energetic and more educated and as stated by him (Sukhchain Singh-respondent No. 5) he was not employed in any private firm at that time and in merit he had an edge over the petitioner. It was also observed that the petitioner had been given the benefit of hereditary claim whereas it is settled law that hereditary claim is to be given weightage only when both the candidates are equal in merit. The office of Lambardar, it was observed, was not a hereditary office and son of a Lambardar is not automatically to be appointed as Lambardar in place of his father. It was also observed that the Lambardari is an office and not a reward or gift, nor could it be regarded as a mere honour or decoration. Accordingly, the revision petition was accepted and the orders of the lower revenue authorities were set aside. Aggrieved against the same the petitioner has filed the present petition.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Financial Commissioner gravely erred in setting aside the well merited and considered orders passed by the lower revenue authorities. It is submitted that there is no bar to the appointment of a government employee as Lambardar and all the revenue authorities including the District Collector and the Commissioner having held the petitioner to be more suitable, the orders appointing him as Lambardar are liable to be sustained and upheld. A pointed reference has been made to the affidavit (Annexure-P.7) of Balbir Singh, who is the father of respondent No. 5 in which he (Balbir Singh) has given up his claim in favour of the petitioner.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.