Maninder Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Decided on : 10.11.2025 MANINDER SINGH . .Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for Mr. Simranjeet Singh Sarwara, Advocate for the appellant.
**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) CM-5721-LPA-2025 The prayer in the present application is for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal ( LPA-2263-2025). Keeping in view the averments enumerated in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. Consequently, the delay of 25 days in filing the present appeal ( LPA-2263-2025 ) is condoned.
LPA-2263-2025
! "" #$
%
" "
" "
-2- &
' "
"
"
(
#$
" "&
")
*
( " #$
" /
(
(
$+0
,
"0
'
#
&
"0
*
0 ! !123 -$4 # 5 0
! !
123 -$4
'
"
" '
5 6 +0 5 6
0 7123 -$4
"
'
" "
% " " / 2
7123 -$4
'
5 6 +0 5 6 0
"
# " 5
'
12
4-.
0 # 123 -$4 #
' " '8- ! " 9
1'8- ! "4&
-3-
"
"
"
"
#
! !
'
#
&
"0
0
$
'
5 6 +0 5 6 0
2
"
7 We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the case file with his able assistance. 9.
On being asked to point out any perversity in the order (Anneuxre A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant is two years younger than respondent No. 4-Jagdeep Singh and he has a better claim for appointment to the post in question than the respondent No. 4. In this regard, it may be noticed that the difference in age between the appellant and respondent No. 4 is only of two years which cannot be made the basis to contend that 37 years old respondent No. 4-Jagdeep Singh is incapable for discharging the duty on the post of Lambardar of village *
especially when he has been found suitable by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar, SDM as well as Collector.
10.
Further, learned Single judge, while passing the impugned order dated (Anneuxre A-1) has compared the merits and demerits of both the candidates for the post in question as recorded in the paragraph No.6 of the impugned order itself wherein, after consideration all aspects,
-4respondent No. 4 was found to be better suited candidate being graduate and having more land than appellant alongwith the fact that his name has also been recommended by the authorities concerned. The said findings recorded by the Learned Single Judge has not been dislodged by the appellant in the present appeal.
11.
Further, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there were certain demerits with regard to illegal encroachment of the Government lands at the hands of respondent no. 4 12.
On being asked, as to whether the said illegal encroachment of land at the hands of the respondent no. 4 has been proved or not by raising complaint before appropriate authorities, learned counsel for the appellant concedes that no such allegations alleged against respondent No. 4 have been proved even so far.
13.
That being so, in the totality of circumstances, the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Lambardar of Village *
'
0
"
'
5
'
12
4-.
$
# :0
"
/ "
" " "" "
#
'
"
0"
0
/
5 123 2$4
"
-5-
0
"
0
'
"
"
9 " " ' "
"
2
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 10.11.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether Reportable:
Yes/No