SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,J - (1.) PETITIONER Gurlal Singh, who was appointed as Lambardar of village Jasseana, Tehsil and District Muktsar by order dated a 13.3.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur, while accepting of his appeal against the order of the Collector, has filed the instant petition challenging the order dated 17.12.2007 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, whereby while disposing of the revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 the matter has been remanded to the District Collector for appointment of Lambardar by inviting fresh application.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that after the death of earlier Lambardar of the village in the year 2002, applications were invited for appointment to the post of Lambardar after due proclamation in the village. In pursuance of the said proclamation, nine candidates applied for the said post, including the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Collector after considering the comparative merits of all the candidates, appointed Bikkar Singh (respondent No. 3 herein) as Lambardar of the village vide his order dated 29.8.2002. Against the said order the petitioner and Baljinder Singh (respondent No. 2 herein) filed two separate appeals before the Commissioner. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal of Baljinder Singh and allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner by passing a common order dated 13.3.2003 while observing as under : "I have heard the learned counsel of both the appellants as well as respondent and also perused the lower court record and came to the conclusion that appellant Gurlal Singh is young in age and passed upto Matric and owns 233 kanals 11 marlas of land whereas the others i.e. appellant Baljinder Singh and respondent own less land and less qualification than the Gurlal Singh. Moreover, the father of the appellant (Gurlal Singh) remained Sarpanch of the village for about 15 years and the commands good respect in the village. This factor must be considered at the time of appointment of Lambardar as per citation passed by the learned Financial Commissioner, Revenue in R.O.R. No. 358 of 1995-96 in case Kuldip Singh v. Sarabjit Singh. 1997(4) RCR(Civil) 46. Therefore, in these circumstances, I accept the appeal bearing No. Lamb. 68/2002 and dismiss the connected appeal Baljinder Singh v. Bikkar Singh and appoint Sh. Gurlal Singh s/o Dalip Singh, Lambardar of village Jasseana Dial Patti, Tehsil and District Muktsar and set aside the impugned order." Against the aforesaid order, only Baljinder Singh filed revision petition before the Financial Commissioner which has been allowed by the impugned order and the matter has been remanded to the District Collector while observing as under : "After hearing both the counsel and carefully going through the record as well as the order of the lower Courts I consider it fit to remand the case to District Collector, Muktsar for inviting fresh application for appointment of Lambardar of village Jasseana for a wider choice and also consider the present three candidates, namely Bikkar Singh, Baljinder Singh and Gurlal Singh. The present revision petition is disposed of accordingly." This order has been challenged by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. We have heard the counsel for the parties.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the Financial Commissioner was not justified in remanding the case to the Collector for inviting fresh applications for appointment to the post of Lambardar. He submitted that it was not the case of either party before the Financial Commissioner that in the instant case no proper proclamation for inviting applications for the post of Lambardar was made. The Financial Commissioner can remand the case for inviting fresh applications for appointment of Lambardar only in case he comes to the conclusion that proper opportunity was not given to the villagers by making due proclamation by inviting the applications for appointment of Lambardar or that none of the candidate is eligible or suitable for appointment on the post. But, in this case no such finding has been recorded by the Financial Commissioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the Commissioner after considering the comparative merits of all the candidates came to the conclusion that the petitioner was the most suitable candidate for appointment of Lambardar, therefore, he was appointed as such after setting aside the appointment of Bikkar Singh made by the Collector. The Financial Commissioner has not touched that aspect or has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not a better candidate or was ineligible or unqualified for appointment to the post of Lambardar. Without coming to such conclusion, the Financial Commissioner was not justified in setting aside the order of the Collector.;