Surinder Kumar v. Financial Commissioner Appeals Punjab And Others

Village Chak Kheyo Wali, proceedings for filling up the said vacancy were initiated.

Chak Kheyo Wali 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby the Collector's order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) was set aside and respondent No.5 (Ravinder Kumar) was appointed as the Lambardar of Village Chak Kheyo Wali.

2.4 Being dissatisfied, petitioner (Surinder Kumar) and respondent No.4 (Baldev Raj) preferred two separate (Annexure P-8), whereby

24.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur was set aside and the Collector's dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) was restored.

passing the order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-5), whereby respondent No.4 (Baldev Raj) was appointed as Lambardar of Village Chak Kheyo Wali, despite the fact that the petitioner was younger in age and more educated than respondent No.4 and was also having a hereditary claim. It is further submitted that though the learned Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur, vide order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-6), had set aside the Collector's order, however, he erred in appointing respondent No.5 as Lambardar. It is contended that the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, has also erred in passing order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-8), whereby he restored the Collector's order, without appreciating better merits of the petitioner. 4.

1 With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Collector, Fazilka; order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur; and order dated 26.05.2025 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Punjab, and for directing the appointment of the petitioner (Surinder Kumar) as Lambardar of Village Chak Kheyo Wali. 5.

Heard.

6.

Here, it would be apposite to state the relative merits of the

petitioner, respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 (as noticed by the learned Collector, Fazilka), which can be summed up as under:- Sr.

No.

Particulars Petitioner Resp. No.4 Resp. No.5 (Surinder Kumar) (Baldev Raj) (Ravinder Kumar) 1.

Age 41 years (as on date 43 years) 57 years (as on date 59 years) 36 years (as on date 38 years) 2.

Educational qualification 12th class pass 10th class pass 12th class pass+Diploma in Computer Application (DCA) 3.

Land holding(s) 103 Kanal-16 Marla 41 Kanal 41 Kanal-2 Marla 4.

Recommended by ---- Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar and Sub Divisional Magistrate Gram Panchayat 6.1 A perusal of the above chart shows that no doubt, the petitioner is younger in age than respondent No.4; and , although the petitioner has studied up to 10+2 and is more educated than respondent No.4, who has studied up to 10th standard, however, only on that account, respondent No.4 is not rendered ineligible for

the post of Lambardar.

7.

, it needs no reiteration that the such claim has been held to be ultra vires the Constitution 8.

The learned Collector, Fazilka, after interacting with all the candidates and appreciating their relative merits and demerits, found respondent No.4 to be the most suitable candidate for the post of Lambardar. 9.

09.07.2025 Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2217 of 2024 titled as "Murti Devi Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.", wherein it has been observed as under: order dated

24.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Ferozepur and restored order dated 24.12.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Collector, Fazilka, whereby respondent No.4 (Baldev Raj) was appointed as Lambardar of Village Chak Kheyo Wali. and the same is accordingly dismissed.

11.

All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.