RAJIVE BHALLA,J - (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to orders dated 17.4.1997, 26.3.2001 and 25.3.2004 passed by the Collector, the Commissioner Patiala Division, Patiala and the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, respectively rejecting the petitioner's claim to be appointed as a Lambardar.
(2.) THE demise of the incumbent Lambardar Sh. Uttam Singh led to a proclamation by the Collector for filling up of the vacancy. After following the process prescribed, namely; inviting applications, recommendations by the Tehsildar, the Naib Tehsildar, etc. and permitting prospective candidates to lead evidence the Collector, Roop Nagar, vide order dated 17.4.1997 held that respondent No. 5 was the most suitable candidate to be appointed to the post of Lambardar. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 26.3.2001. A revision filed before the Financial Commissioner, (Appeals-II) Punjab was also dismissed vide order dated 25.3.2004. Counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of the order passed by the Collector, discloses a gross failure to consider the petitioner's merits. It is contended that the Collector held that as Balbir Singh, respondent No. 5 had received a commendation certificate from President of India and belonged to the family of the deceased Lambardar, he was a better candidate to occupy the post of Lambardar. The Collector, however, ignored that the petitioner had also received a commendation certificate from the President of India, was supported by a large number of residents of the village, his father had remained a Panch for 15 years, his wife was a lady panch and his over all reputation, made him a better candidate. It is contended that the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner, (Appeals-II) also failed to consider the petitioner's merits and as the orders suffer from an error of jurisdiction, respondent No. 5's selection be set aside.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents, however, contends that the Collector, recorded his subjective satisfaction, as to the merits of the candidates after a considered appraisal thereof. The Collector's choice was upheld by the Commissioner and the Financial Commissioner. The contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner do not merit acceptance.;