PARVEEN KUMAR SANDHU Vs. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER (ANIMAL HUSBANDRY), PUNJAB
LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-98
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on March 18,2016

Parveen Kumar Sandhu Appellant
VERSUS
Financial Commissioner (Animal Husbandry), Punjab Respondents

JUDGEMENT

PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL,J. - (1.) PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL,J. (Oral) 1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure P -5) passed by respondent No.1 -Financial Commissioner and order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P -4) passed by respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar whereby order dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P -2) passed by respondent No.3 appointing the petitioner Lambardar has been set aside and respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioner had resigned from the post of Lambardar of village Jaijon Doaba, Tehsil Garshankar and in order to fill up the said vacancy, applications were invited from the interested persons by making proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In furtherance of proclamation, five persons including the petitioner and respondent No.4 submitted their applications. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merits of the candidates found the petitioner to be fit for the post of Lambardar and ultimately appointed him Lambardar vide order dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P -2). Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.4 preferred appeal before respondent No.2 - Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who set aside the order dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P -2) and appointed respondent No.4 as Lambardar vide impugned order dated 19.05.2014 (Annexure P -4) on the ground that petitioner, who has now again applied for the post of Lambardar, had earlier resigned from the post of Lambardar for contesting the elections for the post of Sarpanch and he was holding the post of Sarpanch at the time of passing the order dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P -2) and such a move amounts to negation of law. Against that, the petitioner preferred revision before respondent No.1 who dismissed the same vide impugned order dated 12.09.2014 (Annexure P - 5). Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) Upon notice, respondent No.4 filed reply with the averments that earlier the petitioner resigned from the post of Lambardar, therefore, he cannot hold the same post again. The resignation was for various reasons mentioned in the application and reference to the same has been made. The resignation was on the ground that he has to serve his parents.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.