- (1.) Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 26.06.2001 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and the order dated 03.10.2005 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner, Appeals, Punjab. A prayer has also been made that the order dated 28.02.2001 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Collector, Rupnagar, appointing petitioner as Lambardar, be upheld. Brief facts of the case are that on account of death of Sewa Singh, Lambardar of village Badala, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, applications were invited from the interested persons by making proclamation in the village after obtaining necessary sanction from the Collector. In furtherance of proclamation, 5 candidates including petitioner and respondent No.2 submitted their applications. The antecedents of the candidates were got verified from the police and they were found to be of good moral character. Naksha Lambardari in respect of the candidates was called from the Halqa Patwari. A.C-IInd Grade and A.C-Ist Grade recommended the name of petitioner-Rattan Singh for the post of Lambardar. The Collector after appreciating the comparative merit of the candidates found petitioner-Rattan Singh, to be fit and suitable candidate and vide order dated 28.02.2001 (Annexure P-1) appointed him as Lambardar of village Badala. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No.2 preferred appeal before the Commissioner, Patiala Division who accepted the appeal; set aside the order dated 28.02.2001 (Annexure P-1) and appointed respondent No.2-Sukhjit Singh as Lambardar vide order dated 26.06.2001 (Annexure P-3). Against that, the petitioner preferred appeal before respondent No.1-Financial Commissioner, Appeals-I, Punjab which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.10.2005 (Annexure P-7). Hence, this writ petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner-Rattan Singh is an ex-serviceman. He has served in the Army for 37 years. The petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is a govt. servant and he cannot discharge the function of a Lambardar. The Collector after considering the comparative merits of the candidates appointed the petitioner as Lambardar and it is settled law that choice of the Collector cannot be lightly set aside. Per contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned order. They contended that respondent No.2 is more meritorious than the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is younger in age than the petitioner and is a graduate/B.Pharma. Respondent No.2 was ignored by the Collector only on the ground that he is a govt. employee. He is posted nearby his village and gets free from work at 2.00 P.M. He is performing his duties as Lambardar since his appointment by the Commissioner and nobody has made any complaint/objection regarding availability of respondent No.2 in the village. A person who is a govt. servant cannot be deprived of appointment as Lambardar when he has property in the said village. He is having 21 bighas 15 biswas of land, whereas petitioner is having only 3 killas of land. Respondent No.2 is the son of deceased-Lambardar on account of whose death the said vacancy has been caused. The impugned orders are well-reasoned. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) A reference to the relevant Rules 15 and 17 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules (as applicable to Punjab), for appointment of Village Headman, would be beneficial to decide the controversy. The said rules read as under:- "15. Matters to be considered in first appointments- In all first appointments of headman, regard shall be had among other matters to- (a) his hereditary claims; (b) the property in the estate possessed by the candidate to secure the recovery of land revenue; (c ) services rendered to the State by himself or by his family; (d) his personal influence, character, ability and freedom from indebtedness; (e) the strength and importance of the community from which selection of a headman is to be made; (f) services rendered by himself or by his family in the national movements to secure freedom of India. "17. Matters to be considered in appointment of successors- (i) In an estate, or sub-division thereof, owned chiefly, or altogether by Government successor to the office of headman shall be selected with due regard to all the considerations, other then hereditary claims, stated in Rule 15; (ii) In other estates for the appointment of successor to headman, regard shall be had to the matters contained in Rule 15; and (iii) xxxx (iv) Election shall not in any case be resorted to as an aid in making appointments under this rule and rule 14.";