← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/15954/2017dismissed

Sarban Singh v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab And ORS

2017-07-24Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

Vinod Kumar 2017.07.28 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No.15954 of 2017 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.15954 of 2017 Date of decision:24.07.2017 Sarban Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab and others ...Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. S.K.Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.

This petition is filed in order to challenge the orders passed by the revenue authorities, by which respondent no.2 has been appointed as Lambardar of village Chatteana, District Sri Muktsar Sahib In short, after the death of Jangir Singh Lambardar of village Chatteana, District Sri Muktsar Sahib on 19.04.2011, the proceedings were initiated to fill up the said vacant post, pursuant to which 9 applications were received. Both Tehsildar and the SDO(Civil) recommended the name of respondent no.2. The Collector, after considering inter-se merit of all the candidates, found respondent no.2 as most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar and appointed him vide his order dated 20.05.2013. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner and Financial Commissioner were also dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent no.2 is a political person since he has been elected as a Member of the Panchayat

CWP No.15954 of 2017 [ 2 ] ***** Samiti, therefore, he should not have been appointed as a Lambardar. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that the contention of the petitioner that since respondent no.2 is a political person, therefore, he should not have been appointed as Lambardar is totally misplaced. In the absence of any perversity in the impugned orders passed concurrently by all the authorities concerned, there is hardly any reason for this Court to interfere in this petition.

Dismissed.

July 24, 2017 (Rakesh Kumar Jai n) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No