- (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No. 1-Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab whereby respondent No. 2-Satwant Singh has been appointed as Lambardar and orders dated 09.06.2011 passed by Collector, Sri Muktsar Sahib and 29.03.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur have been set aside. Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Gurjant Singh of village Khaneka Dhab, Tehsil Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, applications were invited from the interested persons by making proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In furtherance of proclamation, 9 candidates submitted their applications out of which petitioner, respondent No. 2 and one Gurinder Pal Singh were left in the fray as remaining were proceeded against ex parte. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found petitioner-Ramandeep Singh to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 09.06.2011 (Annexure P-3) appointed him as Lambardar of the village. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur which has been dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2012 (Annexure P-4). Against that, respondent No. 2 filed revision before respondent No. 1-Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure P-5) and respondent No. 2 has been appointed as Lambardar. Hence, instant writ petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Malout recommended the name of petitioner for appointment as Lambardar. There is also recommendation of Gram Panchayat in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is permanent resident of the village whereas respondent No. 2 is serving in Electricity Department at Bathinda and is not residing in the village. Respondent No. 2 is also having a vote in Bathinda Urban Assembly Constituency. The petitioner is not a defaulter of any bank or society. Learned counsel further contends that Collector has rightly appointed the petitioner as Lambardar of the village. The findings recorded by the Collector have also been affirmed by the Commissioner. However, vide impugned order dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure P-5), the Financial Commissioner has wrongly allowed the revision filed by respondent No. 2 by recording a finding that respondent No. 2 has hereditary claim being son of deceased-Lambardar whereas the hereditary claim has been held to be unconstitutional. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently oppose the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and contend that impugned order is legal and justified. Respondent No. 2 is son of deceased-Lambardar, having 202 kanals of land and has studied upto B.A. (L.L.B). Respondent No. 2 is more meritorious than the petitioner.;