- (1.) Feeling aggrieved against the impugned order dated 11.5.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab- respondent No.2, whereby he accepted the revision petition filed by respondent No.5-Sahib Singh, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner ordered vide order dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 21.2.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by District Collector and Commissioner, respectively, appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar in place of the petitioner, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the impugned orders.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) A bare combined reading of order dated 25.4.2011 (Annexure P-1) and the order dated 21.2.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the District Collector, Gurdaspur and Commissioner, Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar, 1 of 6 respectively, would make it crystal clear that the learned District Collector miserably failed to examine, consider and appreciate the true facts of the case, including the merits of respondent No.5, while appointing the petitioner as Lambardar by passing a patently illegal order. The learned District Collector just accepted the report made by Assistant Collector 1st Grade, without recording his own findings after due application of his independent and judicious mind. The District Collector, being the appointing authority, was duty bound to consider and appreciate the comparative merits of all the candidates, before arriving at a just conclusion, to find the most suitable candidate, for appointment to the post of Lambardar. However, in the instant case, the District Collector miserably failed to do so and that too for no good reasons.;