RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK,J. - (1.) Present writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.07.2016 (Annexure P-7) passed by Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, whereby appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 03.06.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by District Collector, Amritsar, appointing respondent No.3 as Chowkidar of the village, was upheld.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the second round of litigation between the parties. Petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.18973 of 2011, which was disposed of vide order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexure P-3), remanding the matter to Deputy Commissioner to consider the recommendation and appoint any suitable person on the basis of material that the parties placed before him. 1 of 4 Facts are hardly in dispute. In compliance of the abovesaid order dated 16.10.2012 passed by this Court, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ajnala submitted his report dated 23.12.2013 (Annexure P-5) to the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar recommending the name of respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of Chowkidar. Said report of SDM, Ajnala was considered by District Collector and after considering comparative merits of both the candidates, respondent No.3 was appointed as Chowkidar vide order dated 03.06.2014 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner filed his appeal, which also came to be dismissed by the Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar vide impugned order dated 25.07.2016 (Annexure P-7).
(3.) A bare combined reading of the order passed by this Court at Annexure P-3, self-contained report furnished by SDM, Ajnala at Annexure P- 5, appointment order dated 03.06.2014 passed by District Collector (Annexure P-6) as well as the appellate order passed by Commissioner at Annexure P-3, would make it crystal clear that none of the respondent authorities have committed any error of law, while passing their respective impugned orders and the same deserve to be upheld. The operative part of the order dated 16.10.2012 passed by this Court, available at page 30 of the paper book, reads as under: - "Both the counsels appearing in this case are not clear whether there was any nomination in respect of SDM or not. The appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed by the ADC. In my view, the matter till date has not reached the Deputy Commissioner in any manner. It will be, therefore, appropriate to remand the case 2 of 4 back to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the appointment of the petitioner in the light of the above legal position. It will be for the Deputy Commissioner to consider the recommendation and appoint any suitable person on the basis of material that the parties would place before him. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of." ;