JASBIR SINGH, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the order dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Financial Commissioner Appeals-I, Punjab, Chandigarh, vide which, revision petition, filed by respondent No. 2 was allowed and order passed by the Commissioner, in favour of the petitioner, appointing him as Lambardar of Village Bandalehri, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, was set aside and that of the Collector dated 26.5.1999 (Annexure P-7) was restored.
(2.) IT is apparent from the record that on accrual of a vacancy, applications were invited to appoint Lambardar in the village. Petitioner, respondent No. 2 and one Arun Kumar, were the candidates. After taking note of the reports, made by the subordinate revenue staff, the Collector appointed respondent No. 2 as Lambardar of the village and sanad was also issued in his favour on 19.4.2000 (Annexure R2/8). The Collector, while appointing respondent No. 2 as Lambardar of the Village, has observed, thus :- "Arguments of counsels for five candidates heard and record brought on case file perused and I have reached the conclusion that out of five candidates Vinod Kumar is suitable than the rest of the candidates, because candidate Satpal is working as a commission agent and, therefore, he cannot get the people's work done ignoring his own work. Candidate Bhupinder Singh is serving in the N.F.L. Candidate Ranjit Singh is hard of hearing, thus, he cannot perform the duties of Lambardar properly. Candidate Arun Kumar has also got a government job in Chandigarh due to which he also cannot discharge the duties of Lambardar properly. Candidate Vinod Kumar is better educated than all the other candidates. Keeps good relations in the village. Does not have links with any political party, permanent resident of the village, bears good moral character. Therefore, Shri Vinod Kumar, candidate is suitable of all the five candidates. Therefore, he is hereby appointed as Lambardar of village Bandalheri. Sanad Lambardari be issued. Order pronounced." The petitioner went in appeal, which was allowed by the Commissioner and order of the Collector was set aside on 28.9.2001 (Annexure P-9). Respondent No. 2 went in revision, which was allowed, vide order dated 10.10.2005 (Annexure P-11). On making comparison of merits of both the candidates, it was observed by the respondent No. 1-Financial Commissioner that the respondent No. 2, was a better candidate. To set aside the order passed by the Commissioner, it was observed by the Financial Commissioner, thus :- "There is an allegation that Vinod Kumar is in unauthorised occupation of school ground. Actually this land was donated by his forefathers and it is neither a government land nor a shamlat land. He had submitted certificate of Patwari dated 12.12.2001, which is attached at Annexure P-4/A, in which it is written that he is not in possession of any government land. Thus, I find that Commissioner did not have sufficient evidence before him to rely upon the allegation of encroachment made against him by Satpal. Bhupinder Nath, the father of the appellant had given a categorical affidavit dated 17.11.19917 which was also entered in roznamcha Waquiati dated 2.12.1997 declaring that he was not in possession of any government/Panchayat land and that if there was any such entry in his name, he relinquished his interest/rights in favour of the Panchayat. A report dated 22.5.1996 of Kanungo at page 1997-98 of Collector's file says that father of the petitioner, Bhupinder Nath was in possession of 0-2M land in Khasra No. 52 but it is not mentioned that this khasra No. belongs to government or Panchayat. There is no jamabandi to this effect."
(3.) THEREAFTER , the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. An interim stay was granted in his favour. Thereafter it is not in dispute that the petitioner had died.;