Munish Kumar v. Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab And Others
-1-
!
" #$%$ &'
() ) *
+ ,*
-) .%)
/ ** ++ 0/+1 + )))+ +
*'
2/ *) + *
+/ Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Sapehiya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
*
+/3 0/1
1.
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-10) whereby Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab has dismissed revision petition; order dated 08.09.2021 (Annexure P-7) whereby Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar has dismissed appeal of the petitioner, and order dated 28.11.2017 whereby District Collector, Jalandhar has appointed respondent No. 4 as 'Lambardar'.
2.
Karnail Singh, Lambardar of Mohalla Abadpura, Tehsil Jalandhar-1, Jalandhar passed away on 17.05.2011. The respondent conducted Munadi in the village and invited applications from interested candidates. Seven candidates filed their applications. The District Collector by order dated 15.05.2012 appointed petitioner as Lambardar. He belongs to Schedule Caste Category. The earlier Lambardar was also from this category. District Collector on 22.08.2012
-2issued Sanad Lambardari. The respondent No. 4 herein filed appeal against order of appointment of petitioner. Commissioner vide order dated 24.02.2016 allowed appeal and remanded the matter back to District Collector for passing a fresh order. On remand, the District Collector vide order dated 28.11.2017 appointed respondent No. 4 as Lambardar. The petitioner unsuccessfully preferred appeal before Commissioner. He further preferred revision before Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab who vide impugned order dated 18.12.2023 dismissed revision petition.
3.
Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate submits that respondent No. 4 is a deed writer and carrying out his activities in Tehsil which is located at a distance of 2 kilometers from the village. If he is permitted to continue, the villagers would have to visit Tehsil for their every grievance. It would cause unwanted inconvenience to them.
4.
Lambardar, however, his appointment was set-aside by Appellate Authority and matter was remanded back to District Collector. The matter was reconsidered by District Collector and respondent No. 4 came to be appointed as Lambardar. The petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal before Commissioner as well as revision before Financial Commissioner (Appeals). The Authorities in the impugned orders have rejected objections of the petitioner including question of availability of respondent No. 4. The relevant extracts of findings recorded by Financial Commissioner (Appeal) are reproduced as below:-
-3-
!
"
!
! # "
"
$ %&'&
"
!
( # " ) !
!
*$+&, '-',.''/
*$ + &, '-',.''/
0
','..'.' 1 2 3 4
1 1
.5%%.'%6
1 2 7
# 7 ($8
.''& 9%: $$ 9: 6,6 ;
(
-4-
6 $
< '5'&.'.%
< .5%%.'%6
*
6.
This Court cannot determine suitability of the parties especially when respondent No. 4 is not suffering from any disability which makes him ineligible for the post. The petitioner is simply claiming that he is more meritorious and available to the villagers. The respondent is also resident of the same village and is a deed writer and remains in Tehsil Complex. There is no complaint of the villagers and petitioner cannot be heard to say that he is always available and respondent No. 4 is not available. 7.
In any case, the authorities have examined all the arguments of the petitioner and this Court k ! " # $Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences Vs. Bikartan Das and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 996% & ! # 8.
Dismissed.
'(( ) 4*
+/5 !
* &+ ,+- * . ,+-