- (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 08.11.2015 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab whereby the orders dated 19.08.2003 (Annexure P-2) and 27.09.2002 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar, have been set aside.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that to fill up the vacancy caused on account of death of Niranjan Singh, Lambardar (SC) of village Neela Naloha, applications were invited from the interested persons by making proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In furtherance of the proclamation, 6 candidates submitted their applications out of which 4 candidates including the petitioner and respondent No.4 were remained in fray. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found petitioner-Hardeep Singh to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 27.09.2002 (Annexure P-1), appointed him Lambardar (SC) of the village. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.4 preferred appeal before respondent No.2- Commissioner (Appeals), Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar which has been dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2003 (Annexure P-2). Being dissatisfied, respondent No.4 preferred revision before respondent No.1- Financial Commissioner, Appeals-II, Punjab which has been allowed and orders dated 27.09.2002 (Annexure P-1) and 19.08.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by respondent Nos.3 and 2, respectively, have been set aside and respondent No.4 has been appointed as Lambardar, vide impugned order dated 08.11.2005 (Annexure P-3). Hence, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order is result of misreading of records, therefore, not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.4 and, therefore, he was rightly appointed as Lambardar by the Collector and choice of the Collector cannot be set aside lightly. Respondent No.4 did not place on record his qualification certificate of B.A before respondent No.3-Collector and produced the same before respondent No.2-Divisional Commissioner, who did not give any weightage to the qualification of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 is not having any land in his name.;