AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,J. - (1.)Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, whereby the revision appeal preferred by respondent No.4-Sarabjit Kaur, who has been appointed the Lambardar by the Collector vide order dated 06.11.2013, which order was set aside by the Commissioner vide order dated 12.11.2014 (Annexure P-2), has been allowed.
(2.)It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is younger in age than respondent No.4 and holds a professional diploma in Mechanical Engineering with more land as compared to respondent No.4 and, therefore, is a much more qualified person to be appointed to the post of Lambardar. He contends that Sarabjit Kaur may also be a graduate i.e. B.A. pass but she owns land which is much lesser than what the petitioner owns and is older in age to the petitioner. He contends that since the petitioner is well qualified, is younger in age and has more land as compared to respondent No.4, he would be entitled to appointment to the post of Lambardar vis-a-vis respondent No.4. His contention is that the Financial Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) has not taken into consideration the comparative merits of the candidates but has only mentioned that the Collector has discussed merits and demerits of the candidates and that the choice of the Collector should not have been disturbed by the Commissioner by interfering in the appeal. He, thus, contends that the impugned order dated 24.04.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner, Punjab, and the order dated 06.11.2013 passed by the District Collector, Sangrur, cannot sustain and deserve to be set aside.
(3.)On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has supported the orders passed by the Financial Commissioner as well as the Collector by asserting that the comparative merits of the candidates have been duly considered by the Collector. It has further been asserted that the Collector has himself interacted with the candidates and found respondent No.4 to be a better candidate vis-a-vis the other candidates and, therefore, has proceeded to appoint respondent No.4 as the Lambardar of the village. He contends that merely because respondent No.4 is a lady and has a nine years old son can itself not be a disqualification to be attached for treating her to be not fit for appointment to the post of Lambardar, as mention by the Commissioner to have been argued by the counsel for the petitioner. However he points out that respondent No.4 lives in a joint family and the other members of the family can take care of the only son, who is also now grown up. He on this basis contends that respondent No.4 being more qualified and found to be more suitable candidate has been appointed by the Collector and the choice of the Collector should not be interfered with.