- (1.) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 23.5.2011, vide which, the learned Single Judge allowed a writ petition filed by respondent No.4.
(2.) As per facts on record, in that writ petition respondent No.4 had laid challenge to an order passed by the Collector on 13.8.2007, appointing the appellant as a Lambardar of village Mamrai, tehsil Batala, district Gurdaspur. Further challenge was made to an order passed by the Financial Commissioner on 28.4.2010, vide which an order passed by the Commissioner on 21.4.2008, in favour of respondent No.4, was reversed and that of the Collector was restored.
(3.) In this case, dispute is with regard to an appointment of a Lambardar. To fill up a vacancy, applications were invited. Appellant and respondent No.4 were the contesting candidates. Claim of respondent No.4, though better on merits, yet it was rejected by stating that he might be residing at Batala. He went in appeal, which was accepted, order passed by the Collector, appointing the appellant, was reversed. The appellant went in revision, which was allowed by the Financial Commissioner by restoring an order passed by the Collector. Thereafter, respondent No.4 came to this Court by filing CWP No.15883 of 2010, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order, by observing as under:- "9 It is not in dispute that Kartar Singh, father of respondent No.4, died on 27.4.1994. Thereafter, respondent No.4 started serving as Sarbrah Lambardar. On 20.12.2006, respondent No.4 made an application (Annexure P-1) to Tehsildar, Batala, with a prayer that Sanad Lambardari be issued in his favour. It has been pleaded in the application (Annexure P-1) that after death of Kartar Singh, respondent No.4 had been performing the work of Lambardar continuously as Sarbrah Lambardar and even an Identity Card had been issued by Tehsildar, Batala. 10 Be that as it may, as per the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, proclamation was issued inviting applications for appointment as Lambardar. Vide order dated 13.8.2007 (Annexure P-3), respondent No.4 was appointed Lambardar by the Collector. The Collector has not examined as to under which provision of law respondent No.4 continued to serve as Lambardar since the year 1994 till the year 2006, when respondent No.4 made the application (Annexure P-1), for issuance of Sanad Lambardari in his favour. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has also not been able to apprise the Court as to the procedure under which respondent No.4 continued to serve as Lambardar. 11 In fact, death of Kartar Singh was required to be reported forthwith so that a Lambardar could be appointed by the Collector, after following due process of law. The same, however, was not done. Be that as it may, suitability of respondent No.4 for being appointed as Lambardar was required to be seen in the context of his conduct in not bringing to fore the death of Kartar Singh, immediately on his death. Very conveniently, respondent No.4 kept on serving as Sarbrah Lambardar for a long period of 12 years. 12 So as to examine the comparative merit, I find that the petitioner is better qualified, being a graduate, vis-a-vis respondent No.4, who is 5th class pass. The petitioner has more land in the village. The petitioner is an ex-serviceman and no demerit is attached to the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner is also younger in age by 9 years as compared to respondent No.4. The comparative merit of the petitioner and respondent No.4 deserves a conclusion that the petitioner is more meritorious as compared to respondent No.4. 13 So far as residence of the petitioner is concerned, Driving Licence of the petitioner (Annexure P-4), issued in the year 2003, Ex-serviceman Identity Card (Annexure P-5), Voters' List for the year 2007 (Annexure P-6) and Ration Card (Annexure P-7), indicate the residence of the petitioner to be in the village. In view of the documents referred to above, this court is of the considered opinion that conclusion drawn by the Collector and upheld by the Financial Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner might be living in Batala, is without any basis and foundation. 14 Considering the conduct of respondent No.4, he having abused the process of law in continuing to serve as Sarbrah Lambardar without there being any order to that effect, such misconduct cannot be supported by way of appointment of respondent No.4 as Lambardar." We feel that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is perfectly justified. Ordinarily, choice of the Collector is not supposed to be upset, however, if there is perversity in the order passed on facts and in law, the order can be reversed. The same is the position in this case. Respondent No.4 is a better candidate on merits, however, his claim was rejected only on a ground that he might be residing at Batala without giving any specific finding in that regard. Otherwise also, during arguments, it transpired that the distance between the village Mamrai and Batala is only about 18 kilometers. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.;